People v. Branham

Following his jury conviction on five counts of criminal sexual assault, Robert Branham's direct appeal was affirmed on the merits but remanded for a preliminary Krankel inquiry into his pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On remand, the trial court conducted the inquiry and denied further relief, finding the allegations involved trial strategy or otherwise lacked merit. Branham appealed that denial.

The appellate court first held that the trial court's preliminary Krankel inquiry itself was procedurally adequate, since the court allowed Branham to fully explain his complaints, asked follow-up questions, and considered his responses before ruling—satisfying the standard set forth in People v. Moore and People v. Ayres. However, applying the manifest error standard, the court reversed the trial court's substantive denial of independent counsel. The record showed that trial counsel had obtained multiple continuances specifically to investigate medical evidence, told the court a nurse examiner's report could be favorable, identified her as a potential witness, acknowledged her reluctance to cooperate, and suggested compulsory process might be needed—yet never issued a subpoena, and no medical testimony was ultimately presented. The court found this record insufficient to conclusively establish the omission was a strategic choice rather than an incomplete investigation, warranting appointment of independent counsel to further examine the claim.

For practitioners, this decision illustrates the distinction between the procedural adequacy of a Krankel inquiry and the substantive sufficiency of the trial court's findings on the merits, and clarifies when unexplained failures to subpoena an identified, potentially favorable witness can constitute possible neglect requiring independent counsel rather than being dismissed as trial strategy.