In People v. Parsons, 222 Ill. App. 3d 823, 830-31, 584 N.E.2d 442, 165 Ill. Dec. 263 (1991), the Court reviewed the defendant's complaints voiced to the trial court during posttrial proceedings about certain omissions by trial counsel. After assessing each of the alleged omissions or errors by defense counsel on which the defendant based his claims of neglect, we determined that only one had potential merit: the failure to call Nemerow, a possibly favorable witness, "whom defendant's counsel repeatedly stated in the record would be a witness at trial." Parsons, 222 Ill. App. 3d at 830. The Court remanded for clarification on the single issue of trial counsel's failure to call this witness. Our direction on remand was exact: "If, for example, defendant's trial counsel indicates to the court that Nemerow was in fact interviewed and that counsel determined Nemerow's testimony would not be helpful to defendant, then the matter would clearly be one of trial strategy, and defendant's informal pro se motion would properly be denied." Parsons, 222 Ill. App. 3d at 831. The Court emphasized we were not remanding for appointment of counsel and a full evidentiary hearing; rather, our remand was limited to conducting an inquiry mandated by People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 572 N.E.2d 895, 157 Ill. Dec. 431 (1991) on the single pro se claim of failure to call witness Nemerow. Parsons, 222 Ill. App. 3d at 830-31.