People v. Davidson
Key Takeaways
- 1 Defendant who elected to proceed pro se forfeits plain error review under invited error doctrine.
- 2 Trial court's failure to conduct Krankel inquiry into pro se ineffective assistance claims requires remand.
- 3 Relevant for criminal defense attorneys handling post-trial and post-sentencing proceedings involving pro se defendants or ineffective assistance claims.
Summary
In People v. Davidson, the Fifth District Appellate Court addressed two issues arising from a Class 4 felony conviction for tampering with a security fire or life safety system. After a second jury trial in which the defendant represented himself, appointed counsel was provided for sentencing. Following sentencing, appointed counsel declined to adopt the defendant's pro se motion to reconsider sentence, and the defendant proceeded pro se at subsequent hearings without objection. The defendant also filed an unsworn affidavit alleging ineffective assistance of both appointed counsels, which the trial court never specifically addressed through a Krankel inquiry.
On appeal, the defendant argued he was forced to proceed pro se without a proper waiver of counsel and that the trial court failed to conduct a required Krankel inquiry. The court affirmed on the first issue, applying the invited error doctrine. Because the defendant made no objection to proceeding pro se, never withdrew his pro se appearance, and actively argued his motion without requesting counsel, the court held it was disingenuous to claim on appeal he was forced to proceed pro se — forfeiting even plain error review. On the second issue, the court remanded for a limited Krankel preliminary inquiry, a concession the State joined.
For practicing attorneys, Davidson reinforces that a defendant's affirmative election to proceed pro se — even absent a formal waiver colloquy — can foreclose appellate relief. It also confirms that any pro se post-trial filing alleging ineffective assistance, however informal, triggers the trial court's mandatory Krankel inquiry obligation.
Key Holdings
1. A defendant who affirmatively elects to proceed pro se, makes no objection at post-sentencing hearings, and argues his own motion without requesting counsel forfeits plain error review of any claimed denial of the right to counsel under the invited error doctrine.
2. The invited error doctrine applies beyond mere waiver and bars plain error review when the defendant's own conduct invited or agreed to the challenged procedure.
3. A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to conduct any preliminary Krankel inquiry into a defendant's pro se post-trial allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, even where the allegations are contained in an unsworn affidavit and lack specific factual support.
4. On remand following a Krankel violation, if the trial court determines the ineffective assistance claims are spurious or pertain only to trial strategy, it may deny the claims and leave the conviction and sentence undisturbed.