1 

2023 IL App (5th) 220050-U 

NO. 5-22-0050 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the

 ) Circuit Court of

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Madison County. 

 ) 

v. ) No. 20-CF-2969 

 ) 

GEORGE E. LACEY, ) Honorable 

 ) Kyle A. Napp, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Welch and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

 

 ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request 

severance of the charges.

¶ 2 The defendant, George E. Lacey, was convicted of first degree murder and unlawful 

possession of weapons by a felon after a jury trial. The defendant appeals the convictions based 

on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where trial counsel failed to sever the charge of 

unlawful possession of weapons by a felon from the remaining counts. For the following reasons, 

we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On the evening of November 19, 2020, Lauren Swearingen was in her apartment, washing 

dishes, when two men forced their way inside by kicking in the back door. One man approached 

Lauren and held her down against the floor. The other man confronted Lauren’s boyfriend, Darian 

NOTICE

This order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1).

NOTICE

Decision filed 08/22/23. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Petition for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.
2 

Woods, who was coming down the staircase from upstairs. Darian was fatally shot in the chest as 

he descended, and fell on the stairs, sliding to the floor. The men then took thousands of dollars 

and cannabis from the apartment and fled. 

¶ 5 On November 24, 2020, the defendant was charged by information with four counts of first 

degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a) (West 2020)), one count of home invasion (720 ILCS 5/19-

6(a)(5) (West 2020)), one count of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(4) (West 2020)), and one 

count of unlawful possession of weapons by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)). The 

defendant’s arrest warrant was issued on November 30, 2020. 

¶ 6 The State filed a notice of intent to introduce certified copies of the defendant’s prior armed 

robbery conviction. The defendant had been convicted of armed robbery on September 1, 2015. 

See People v. Lacey, No. 13-CF-295 (Cir. Ct. St. Clair County). The defense filed a motion 

in limine to preclude the use of the prior conviction for impeachment of credibility of the defendant

and argued that the defendant’s prior conviction was prejudicial and had no bearing on credibility. 

¶ 7 The circuit court held a pretrial conference and addressed the defendant’s motion in limine

to preclude the use of the defendant’s prior conviction. The defense argued that the defendant was 

on trial for armed robbery and that the prior conviction for armed robbery would be used as 

propensity evidence. The State argued that the use of the defendant’s prior conviction for armed 

robbery would be used for impeachment purposes if the defendant testified. Additionally, the State 

argued that it was obligated to present evidence of the prior charge because it was an element of 

the State’s case where the defendant was charged as a felon in possession of a weapon. During the 

motion hearing, the circuit court questioned defense counsel about whether he was going to include 

the unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon charge in the trial. Defense counsel indicated that 
3 

he would defend the charge at trial and stipulated to the fact that the defendant was a convicted 

felon, without mentioning the underlying armed robbery offense. 

¶ 8 The circuit court denied the defendant’s motion in limine, allowing the State to introduce 

the defendant’s armed robbery conviction for impeachment purposes if the defendant testified. If 

the defendant did not testify, the circuit court allowed the defendant to stipulate that he was a 

convicted felon, and the jury would not have knowledge of his prior armed robbery conviction. 

¶ 9 On October 12, 2021, the trial began with jury selection. During jury selection, the circuit 

court addressed the parties outside of the presence of the jury panel regarding the unlawful 

possession of weapons by a felon count. The circuit court again inquired whether defense counsel 

wanted to proceed with the inclusion of that count at trial and defense counsel confirmed his 

position with the circuit court. The circuit court reiterated that the defendant was stipulating that 

he was a felon, and the jurors would not be informed of the nature of the prior conviction. The 

circuit court also reiterated that the defendant’s prior armed robbery conviction would be allowed 

only for impeachment purposes. 

¶ 10 The following day, after the jury was selected, the State presented its opening statement. 

The defense declined to present an opening statement prior to the presentation of the State’s case. 

The State then called Officer Ben Koertge as its first witness. Officer Koertge was dispatched to 

the victim’s residence on the evening of November 19, 2020, and secured the crime scene. Several 

photographs were taken of the outside of the apartment building, the deceased, and the interior of 

the apartment. The photographs were identified by the officer and admitted as evidence. 

¶ 11 Lauren Swearingen testified that she lived with her boyfriend, Darian Woods, in 

Collinsville, Illinois. Darian sold cannabis out of their home. Lauren and Darian used Percocet and 

fentanyl. Their apartment had a “Ring door camera” that was activated by motion. 
4 

¶ 12 On the evening of November 19, 2020, Lauren and Darian were at home in their apartment, 

located on the ground floor of a residence. Lauren testified that she was washing dishes when she 

heard a loud noise. She turned around to see that her back door had been kicked in and two men 

entered her home. A man wearing a “covid mask” and dark clothing came towards her. Lauren 

threw her hands up and cowered down. The man put his hands around her neck and his knee into 

her back, holding her onto the kitchen floor, as she faced her refrigerator. The second man was 

wearing a white shirt and had “something red around his face.” Lauren was able to determine that 

the men were Black, but she never saw their facial features, which were covered.

¶ 13 Lauren testified that the man in the white shirt “bolt[ed] up the stairs.” She heard Darian 

running downstairs at the same time. Lauren testified that there was a “half of a second of just 

scuffling and then a pop.” A gunshot. Lauren saw Darian slide down the stairs headfirst, struggling 

to breathe. The man in the white and red was searching the second floor of the apartment and 

yelled “where’s the money.” The man that had pinned Lauren to the ground grabbed Lauren by 

the neck and directed her upstairs. Lauren had to step over Darian’s body to walk up the stairs. 

Once she reached the second floor, the man released his hold while Lauren walked towards where 

Darian kept the money in a laundry basket. 

¶ 14 After Lauren located the money, the man in the white shirt grabbed what Lauren estimated 

was seven to ten thousand dollars from the laundry basket. This man also took a duffle bag 

containing cannabis and a blue bag of cannabis. Both bags were located in the upstairs bedroom 

closet. Lauren testified that she kept her eyes focused to the side, told the men that she had not 

seen them, and begged them not to hurt her. The man that had pinned her to the ground in the 

kitchen directed Lauren into a bedroom closet, told her not to move or say anything, and he closed 
5 

the closet door. Lauren heard their footsteps as they went downstairs. She called 911 from the 

closet. 

¶ 15 When emergency medical services arrived, Darian no longer had a pulse. Lauren testified 

that she provided the police with videos from her security camera system. Two video clips from 

the security footage were published to the jury. Lauren identified the men on the videos as the 

same men that were in her apartment. Their faces were covered in the videos. The second video 

clip depicted the man in the white and red grabbing the outside security camera. Lauren identified 

that he had a gun in his pocket while he dismantled the camera. 

¶ 16 During cross-examination, Lauren testified that Darian sold marijuana out of their

apartment. Lauren was not familiar with everyone that came to the apartment. Darian also used 

fentanyl and sometimes his drug dealers would come to their apartment. Lauren knew of four 

additional times that Darian had been robbed. Lauren additionally testified that she did not 

recognize the defendant. Lauren clarified that the man in the white and red could have been the 

defendant, as he had the same build. Lauren admitted, however, that she was unable to identify the 

intruders because their facial features were covered. 

¶ 17 Detective Kyle Graham testified to obtaining security footage from a business in 

Collinsville, Illinois, near the victims’ apartment. Between 7:20 p.m. and 7:25 p.m. on November 

19, 2020, a truck with a “fast blinking blinker” paused near where the incident occurred. The same 

truck was shown leaving the area when the 911 call was made by Lauren. Graham additionally 

obtained video footage from a gas station that had a side view of the color, make, and model of 

the truck. The information on the truck was sent to local law enforcement agencies as a vehicle of 

interest. 
6 

¶ 18 Michelle Werner testified to a Facebook Live video dated July 22, 2020. The defendant 

was on the video wearing shoes that appeared to be similar to the shoes shown in the video from 

the crime scene. A clip of the video was published to the jury and introduced into evidence. 

¶ 19 Adisa Smith, the owner of the blue truck identified by law enforcement, also testified. 

Smith was 28 years old, and he attended the same high school as the defendant. Smith viewed the 

Facebook video and confirmed that the defendant was in the video. 

¶ 20 Smith testified to the events that occurred on November 19, 2020. Earlier in the day, Smith 

had contacted Matthew Drake, his friend and mechanic. Drake was drinking with the defendant 

and Demandrell Davis. Smith joined and they drank together for several hours. During that time, 

they did not discuss or plan any crimes. Smith testified that he noticed the defendant was carrying 

a gun. 

¶ 21 Smith indicated that the defendant had offered Smith $50 for a ride. Smith agreed and drove 

the defendant and Davis to Collinsville, Illinois. The defendant directed Smith to drop the 

defendant and Davis off at an apartment building and to back in his truck to park. Smith testified 

the defendant’s instruction seemed “a little weird.” After the defendant and Davis exited the truck, 

Smith drove to the next intersection to turn around and then returned to the apartment complex to 

pick up the defendant and Davis. Smith waited approximately three to five minutes for the 

defendant and Davis. When the two men returned to the truck, they appeared “very nervous” and 

had a reusable shopping bag that “smelled like all weed.” 

¶ 22 Smith testified that the defendant directed Smith to a gas station in St. Louis, Missouri. 

When they crossed the I-70 bridge, the defendant “wrapped something up and threw it in the river.” 

The defendant additionally told Smith and Davis that “if word got back that I [Smith] brought him 

to this apartment, he was gonna kill both of us.”
7 

¶ 23 Smith was shown a video taken from the gas station and he confirmed that the video 

depicted his truck pulling into the gas station. Smith testified that he went inside the gas station

while the defendant and Davis remained in the truck. The defendant sat in the passenger seat and 

wore a long-sleeved white shirt. The video did not clearly depict the passengers that remained in 

the truck. The gas station videos were published and admitted into evidence. Smith testified that 

after he left the gas station, he drove the defendant and Davis back to Davis’s house. The defendant 

gave Smith $50 and cannabis for the ride. 

¶ 24 Four days after the incident, Smith was pulled over by the St. Clair County Sheriff’s 

Department. Smith was arrested and his truck was towed. Smith testified that he was interviewed 

by the police on November 23, 2020. During the interview, Smith provided the police with a 

physical description of the defendant.

¶ 25 Smith admitted that he had lied to the police during his first interview. Smith told the police 

that he had rented his truck to the defendant for the night and Smith was not involved with what 

had happened. Smith additionally told the police that the defendant’s cousin was involved, and not 

Davis, but that was not true. Smith was charged with accessory to murder, home invasion, and 

robbery. Smith pleaded guilty to armed robbery and the State agreed to recommend a sentence of 

10 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Smith testified that he had lied to the police 

because he did not want to get in trouble. Smith additionally testified that he was telling the truth 

in court and that he had received a deal to serve 10 years in prison for the armed robbery conviction. 

¶ 26 An expert in forensic pathology performed Darian Woods’s autopsy and testified that the 

cause of death was a gunshot wound of the chest. The manner of death was homicide. Darian had 

abrasions on his head consistent with being struck with a firearm or fist. Darian had no injuries to 

his hands, or signs of Darian striking anyone. The soot found around the bullet wound 
8 

demonstrated that Darian was shot at close range, within a foot. The gun could have loosely 

touched Darian’s body when fired. The gunshot wound tracked through the upper part of the 

sternum, through the left upper lobe of the lung, through the aorta, and through the spine. Darian 

experienced instantaneous paralysis and because the bullet transected the aorta, Darian would have 

died within minutes of the injury. A bullet was recovered from Darian’s body. 

¶ 27 Detective Michael Hentze was a crime scene investigator with the Illinois State Police.

Detective Hentze testified that he found a “Ring doorbell camera” in a recycling bin outside of the 

apartment complex. He photographed the camera, and the camera was collected and taken to the 

crime lab. Detective Hentze took additional photographs of the crime scene and collected a fired 

cartridge case as evidence. Drug paraphernalia was found in the apartment, but no firearms or 

ammunition were recovered. Detective Hentze additionally collected the bullet obtained during 

the autopsy. He was also involved with the search of Smith’s blue truck. During the search of the 

truck, an Illinois Link card with the name Demandrell Davis was recovered. Detective Hentze did 

not recover any items belonging to the defendant from the apartment or from the truck.

¶ 28 Officer Nicole Dwyer with the Collinsville Police Department testified that she booked 

and fingerprinted the defendant. The defendant’s fingerprint samples were sent to the crime lab 

for a comparison. 

¶ 29 Melissa Gamboe, with the Illinois State Police forensic science lab, testified to examining 

the “Ring doorbell camera.” A latent fingerprint was found on the camera. She compared the 

collected fingerprint to the sample received from the defendant and concluded that the latent print 

on the “Ring doorbell camera” was made by the defendant. Gamboe testified that she was not able 

to determine when the fingerprint was made, “but the likelihood of them staying on a doorbell that 

is outside decreases each day because of the environmental conditions.” 
9 

¶ 30 Angela Horn with the Metro East Forensic Science Laboratory in Belleville, Illinois, 

testified that she analyzed the recovered bullet from Darian’s body and the bullet casing from the 

crime scene. Horn was unable to determine what type of firearm fired the bullet as the firearm was 

not recovered. The recovered cartridge case was a .40-caliber, possibly 10-millimeter, and was 

marked Smith and Wesson. The State rested after Horn testified. 

¶ 31 The defense presented a motion for a directed verdict. The circuit court denied the motion 

for a directed verdict. The defendant did not testify on his own behalf and the defense did not 

present any additional evidence. 

¶ 32 During closing argument, the State argued that the defendant committed first degree 

murder, where he put a gun to Darian Woods’s chest and pulled the trigger at close range. 

Additionally, the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and he had admitted to having been 

convicted of a previous felony. The State played the video from the security camera and argued 

that the video was of the defendant with a gun in his front right pocket. The State’s closing 

argument also included that the defendant left his fingerprint on the security camera. 

¶ 33 The defense argued that the evidence presented did not place the defendant at the crime 

scene. He argued that Adisa Smith was the only witnessthat testified that the defendant was present 

at Darian Woods’s apartment, and his testimony was not believable. The forensic scientist was 

unable to determine how long the fingerprint was on the camera. Darian Woods sold cannabis out 

of his apartment and purchased fentanyl. Lauren Swearingen did not know everyone that had been 

to the apartment to meet with Darian. The defense insinuated that the defendant could have been

at the apartment to purchase cannabis or sell fentanyl prior to the night of the incident and left his 

fingerprint on the “Ring doorbell camera” on a different occasion. 
10 

¶ 34 While the jury was deliberating, they sent a note to the circuit court which stated, “the 

jurors are currently 10-2 that [the defendant] was at the scene. We have come to a standstill. The 

two against say there isn’t enough evidence to say he was there, fingerprint is not enough.” The 

circuit court then sent the jurors home for the evening at approximately 8:30 p.m. 

¶ 35 The jurors continued deliberation the following morning. The jurors sent a note to the 

circuit court that stated, “1) What was the felony charge in 2015?” and “2) Transcript of Adisa 

Smith’s testimony.” For the first question, the circuit court responded that the jurors had received 

all of the evidence in this case. For the second question, the circuit court instructed the jury that 

they should rely on their recollection of the testimony. 

¶ 36 The jurors subsequently submitted a third note which stated, “what happens if we agree on 

2 counts, but are hung on the remainder?” The circuit court noted that the jurors had deliberated 

longer than the presentation of evidence in the case. The jurors were provided lunch and continued 

to deliberate. The jurors subsequently submitted a final note to the circuit court which stated, “We 

have come to an agreement on two of the charges and we are hung on the last three and do not feel 

anything will change.” When the circuit court read the note, the court clarified with counsel that 

there were four felony charges and a question posed to the jury on whether the defendant had 

discharged the firearm. There were five issues that the jury had to decide. They had evidently 

reached an agreement on two of the issues. The circuit court did not believe further deliberations 

would be productive, and the jurors returned to the courtroom. The jurors found the defendant 

guilty of first degree murder and unlawful possession of weapons by a felon. The court declared a 

mistrial as to the charges of home invasion and armed robbery. 

¶ 37 The defense filed a posttrial motion for a new trial which was denied by the circuit court. 

On January 27, 2022, the defendant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 45 years for the 
11 

charge of first degree murder and 7 years for the charge of unlawful possession of weapons by a 

felon. This appeal followed. 

¶ 38 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 39 On appeal, the defendant argues that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of 

counsel for failing to sever the unlawful possession of weapons charge from the remaining felony 

counts. The defendant claims that the evidence of a prior conviction improperly influenced the 

jury in finding the defendant guilty of murder.

¶ 40 Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. People 

v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 15. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are governed by a twopronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Under Strickland, to 

establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that (1) counsel’s 

performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance resulted in prejudice. People v. 

Hughes, 2012 IL 112817, ¶ 44. Where an ineffective assistance of counsel claim has not been 

raised before the circuit court, our review is de novo. People v. Lofton, 2015 IL App (2d) 130135, 

¶ 24. 

¶ 41 To establish deficient performance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the strong 

presumption that defense counsel’s actions were the product of sound trial strategy and not 

incompetence. People v. Tucker, 2017 IL App (5th) 130576, ¶ 26. Representation will not be 

considered ineffective based on mistakes in trial strategy or judgment alone as a defendant is 

entitled to “competent, not perfect, representation.” Tucker, 2017 IL App (5th) 130576, ¶ 26. “In 

establishing the prejudice prong, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for his attorney’s deficient performance, the result of the proceedings would have been 

different.” Tucker, 2017 IL App (5th) 130576, ¶ 26. If we find that the defendant failed to satisfy 
12 

the first prong of Strickland, we need not consider the second prong of whether the deficient 

performance resulted in prejudice. People v. Torres, 228 Ill. 2d 382, 395 (2008).

¶ 42 Generally, charges arising out of the same incident may be tried together (725 ILCS 5/114-

7 (West 2022)), unless it appears that the defendant will be prejudiced thereby (725 ILCS 5/114-

8(a) (West 2022)). The circuit court has broad discretion in its decision to grant or deny a motion 

to sever. People v. Fleming, 2014 IL App (1st) 113004, ¶ 38. 

¶ 43 The defendant relies on People v. Edwards, 63 Ill. 2d 134 (1976), in support of his claim 

that the circuit court would have granted a motion to sever had defense counsel filed the motion. 

In Edwards, the Illinois Supreme Court found that “the joinder of the armed robbery and the 

felonious unlawful use of a weapon charges created such a strong possibility that the defendant 

would be prejudiced in his defense of the armed robbery charge that it was an abuse of the trial 

court’s discretion to deny a severance.” Edwards, 63 Ill. 2d at 140. The Edwards case was specific 

to whether the circuit court erred in denying a severance; ineffective assistance of counsel was not 

at issue. Edwards, 63 Ill. 2d at 138. 

¶ 44 The defendant recognizes that an attorney’s performance will not be found deficient if it 

was based upon sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. “Generally, a defense decision 

not to seek a severance, although it may prove unwise in hindsight, is regarded as a matter of trial 

strategy.” People v. Poole, 2012 IL App (4th) 101017, ¶ 10. The defendant argues that where the 

trial strategy is unsound the defense counsel’s performance will be found deficient. See People v. 

McMillin, 352 Ill. App. 3d 336, 346-47 (2004). The trial strategy presumption is overcome “where 

no reasonably effective criminal defense attorney, confronting trial’s circumstances, would engage 

in similar conduct.” McMillin, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 344. 
13 

¶ 45 Illinois law recognizes that when deciding whether to seek a severance, trial counsel may 

choose an “all or nothing” trial strategy, where the defendant is acquitted or convicted of all 

charges in a single proceeding. People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28. “The mere 

fact that an ‘all-or-nothing’ strategy proved unsuccessful does not mean counsel performed 

unreasonably and rendered ineffective assistance.” Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28. A 

defendant may be disadvantaged by severing a case where an evidentiary deficiency in the first 

case could potentially be cured in the second case. Poole, 2012 IL App (4th) 101017, ¶ 10. We 

also consider that “ ‘[p]erhaps trial counsel felt that it made sense to try for an acquittal of both 

counts in one proceeding, thinking that the impact of the additional conviction would not be 

significant.’ ” Poole, 2012 IL App (4th) 101017, ¶ 10 (quoting People v. Gapski, 283 Ill. App. 3d 

937, 943 (1996)).

¶ 46 Defense counsel addressed the defendant’s prior armed robbery conviction during the 

hearing on his motion in limine to prohibit the use of the conviction if the defendant testified. The 

circuit court denied the motion and the defendant’s conviction of armed robbery would have been 

admissible only if the defendant testified. During the motion hearing, the circuit court additionally 

addressed whether the unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon charge would be included at 

trial. The defense did not seek to sever the charge and sought to minimize the prejudice of the prior 

conviction by stipulating that the defendant was a convicted felon without informing the jury that 

the defendant had a prior armed robbery conviction. The circuit court addressed this issue again 

during jury selection. Defense counsel confirmed that he wished to proceed by stipulating that the 

defendant had a prior conviction. The defense counsel’s decision to stipulate to the prior felony 

indicates that the decision not seek a severance of the felony claims was a matter of trial strategy. 
14 

¶ 47 The defense employed an “all-or-nothing” trial strategy while presenting a theory that there 

was insufficient evidence to place the defendant at the crime scene during the time of the murder. 

Evidence demonstrated that the victim sold drugs to numerous people at his apartment and abused 

fentanyl. Defense counsel argued that the expert witness could not determine a date for the 

defendant’s fingerprint; the defendant may have left his fingerprint at the apartment at an earlier 

time; and, insinuated that the defendant may have purchased drugs from the victim in the past. 

Perhaps defense counsel considered that it made sense to try for an acquittal of all counts in one 

proceeding where the impact of an unknown prior conviction may not be significant considering 

that the defendant’s fingerprint was found at a location associated with illegal drug activity. 

¶ 48 Accordingly, the defendant has failed to overcome the strong presumption that defense 

counsel’s decision to not pursue a motion to sever was a matter of sound trial strategy. Thus, we 

conclude that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel’s 

performance was not deficient, and we need not consider whether defendant was prejudiced.

¶ 49 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 50 For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the defendant did not receive ineffective 

assistance of counsel and affirm his conviction and sentence.

¶ 51 Affirmed.