People v. Krankel

Citation464 N.E.2d 1045,80 Ill.Dec. 62,102 Ill.2d 181
Decision Date25 May 1984
Docket NumberNo. 58415,58415
Parties, 80 Ill.Dec. 62 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. John A. KRANKEL, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Fourth Judicial Dist., Gary R. Peterson, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for appellee.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Mark L. Rotert, Michael V. Accettura, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, David E. Mannchen, Staff Atty., State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Springfield, for appellant; Ronald C. Dozier, State's Atty., Bloomington, of counsel.

CLARK, Justice:

The defendant, John A. Krankel, was charged by information in the circuit court of McLean County with burglary, in that "on or about July 30, 1980, * * * he knowingly and without authority, entered a building occupied by Isaac L. and Virginia T. Brown, with intent to commit therein a theft, in violation of Section 19-1, Chapter 38, Illinois Revised Statutes (1979)." The State made a motion to nolpros the information, so that it could be replaced by a grand jury indictment which was filed on September 10, 1981, which charged the defendant with burglary using the same statement used in the information.

On March 1, 1982, the trial before a jury commenced. The State presented four witnesses: the defendant's ex-wife, Kelly Carr (Krankel), Mr. and Mrs. Isaac Brown, and a Morton police officer named Robert Huston. The defense did not present any evidence on the defendant's behalf.

Prior to trial, defense counsel made an oral motion in limine to exclude the testimony of defendant's ex-wife based upon the marital privilege (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 155-1). The trial judge denied the motion in limine, and no issue was raised on appeal in the appellate court or in this court as to the admissibility of defendant's ex-wife's testimony.

The jury found the defendant guilty of burglary, and the trial judge sentenced the defendant to an extended-term sentence of 14 years, to run consecutively to sentences the defendant had already received in Peoria and Bureau counties. The defendant did not present any evidence on his behalf at the sentencing hearing.

On appeal before the appellate court, the defendant raised four issues. They were: (1) whether he was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel other than defendant's originally appointed counsel to argue his pro se motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) whether the trial court erred in imposing a 14-year extended-term sentence to run consecutively to his other convictions. The appellate court held that the trial court had erred in denying defendant's pro se motion for a new trial based on the fact that his appointed counsel failed to investigate an alibi witness on his behalf. (113 Ill.App.3d 992, 69 Ill.Dec. 692, 447 N.E.2d 1379.) In view of its disposition of the second issue, the appellate court did not address the other issues raised by the defendant. The State filed a petition for leave to appeal with this court pursuant to our Rule 315(a) (87 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)), and we granted the State's petition.

On appeal before this court, the State only raises one issue. The State asserts that because the defendant failed to establish that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel the appellate court erred in reversing his conviction.

A summary of the pertinent facts is as follows. Isaac Brown testified that he and his wife were in their backyard in Hudson gardening and mowing the grass during the early evening hours of July 30, 1980. The front door of their house was unlocked. On July 31, 1980, Mrs. Brown discovered that her wallet, containing several credit cards and a small amount of cash, was missing. After searching for the wallet, the Browns decided that perhaps it had fallen into a wastepaper basket that was located next to the desk where the wallet was last seen. The garbage had been picked up the morning of July 31, 1980, and they assumed it would be impossible to retrieve the wallet. Consequently, the Browns did not report the missing wallet at that time.

Mr. Brown did become concerned that his wife's wallet may have been stolen, however, when he received a Visa credit card bill in August of 1980 listing a purchase of a color television set. Mr. Brown then contacted Visa to notify them about the missing card and the unauthorized purchase.

In January of 1981, Mr. Brown received a phone call from Detective Huston of Morton, inquiring as to whether his Visa credit card had been stolen. Mr. Brown told Huston he believed his credit card had been stolen after Huston showed him the credit card receipt from the K-Mart store in Morton for the purchase of a color television set on July 30, 1980. Both Mr. and Mrs. Brown stated that they had not been in the K-Mart store in Morton in July of 1980 and that they had not signed the sales receipt or authorized the signature which appeared on the sales receipt. Detective Huston advised them to file a police report, which they did, with the McLean County sheriff's department.

Kelly Carr (Krankel), the defendant's ex-wife, was the State's key witness. Carr testified that she married the defendant on April 13, 1979, and divorced him on April 9, 1981, three months after he was charged with the offense involved in this appeal. Carr testified that she and the defendant and their children lived in Morton in July of 1980 and that on July 30, 1980, the defendant and Carr drove to McLean County, exiting from Interstate 74 at the Goodfield exit and driving to Hudson. Carr stated that after the defendant saw that some people were in their backyard he pulled into their driveway. The defendant then left the car, walked through the open garage door, knocked on the door in the garage which led into the house and, having received no response, entered the house. After a couple of minutes, Carr testified, the defendant reappeared carrying a wallet in his bib overalls. The defendant then drove from Hudson back to Morton to a K-Mart store. Carr, the defendant, and their two children went into the K-Mart store, where they purchased a color television set with the Visa card that was in the wallet. Carr stated that she forged the signature of "I.L. Brown" on the sales receipt. The defendant and Carr took the television set to their home, where it remained for a couple of weeks until the defendant sold it to a friend.

The first time Carr spoke to the police concerning the incident described above was in January of 1981, although Carr testified that the police had wanted to talk to her in October of 1980. Carr stated that she did not talk to the police because she was pregnant with their youngest child and was worried about losing it. It was not until the child had its six-week checkup that she contacted the police. Carr admitted that, when she first spoke to Detective Huston in January of 1981, she denied any knowledge of the burglary. Later, she testified, she did admit being in the K-Mart store, but denied knowing where the credit card came from. Still later, Carr told Detective Huston how she and the defendant had obtained the credit card from a house in Hudson. Carr had retained an attorney to commence divorce proceedings at the time she admitted the crime to Huston. On cross-examination, Carr admitted she had been having difficulty serving the defendant in the divorce action, but denied contacting the police in January for the purpose of obtaining service of process upon the defendant. Carr was prosecuted for forgery in Tazewell County for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1117 cases
  • Calene v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 5, 1993
    ...... I gave them all the information required to get in touch with them. I believe that the only people interviewed were the State's witnesses against me. Both of whom told conflicting stories to the investigators. .         Then the day of my ... People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). Where the trial court refused to rule on a pro se motion for a new trial based on trial ......
  • People v. Clifton
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 16, 2019 conduct a preliminary inquiry into his posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as required by People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), and (iv) his 35-year sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion.¶ 3 We find that the State presented s......
  • People v. McCall
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 30, 2021
    ......The trial court held a preliminary Krankel hearing on those claims and rejected them. See People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). On appeal, in an agreed summary order, we reversed and remanded, agreeing with the State's concession that the preliminary Krankel inquiry was an improperly adversarial ......
  • People v. Saulsberry
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 23, 2021
    ......On January 20, 2016, the trial court denied defendant's motion to discharge trial counsel and his second amended motion for a new trial. The trial court scheduled the matter for a hearing, pursuant to People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), on defendant's allegations that trial counsel was ineffective. ¶ 33 Thereafter, defendant retained posttrial counsel to handle the inquiry into trial counsel's conduct and to undertake the posttrial proceedings. Following his ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT