Si xth Di vi si on Decem ber 24, 2009 No. 1-08- 0655 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. ANGEL MERCADO, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty 05 CR 18909 Honorable Thom as V . Gai ner, Jr., Jud ge P re siding JU STI CEMc BR

ID E de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Foll owing a joi nt jury trial , defen

dant An gel Mercado was f

ound guil ty of aggrav

ated di sch arge of a f i rearm and un l awf ul use of a weap on by

a f elon wh i l e code f endan t Rober t Can toral wasacqu i tted of a ggrav ated di sch arge of a f i rearm. Sub seq

uen tly , the tri al court
se nt enc ed de fend ant t o co ncu rr ent t er ms o f 20 yea rs in pr iso n fo r a gg ra vat ed dis cha rg e o f a weap on an

d 12 y ears f or unl awf ul use of a weap on b

y a f elon. De f en da nt a ppe als, a rgu i ng tha t the tri al cou rt er red i n f ai l i ng to seve r hi s tri al f rom tha t of hi s c ode f en da nt b ec au se

the y pre sente d a

nta gon i sti c d ef en se s a nd hi s a ttorn ey wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or f ai l i n g to e n su reth at def

en da n t wa s tr i ed se pa ra tel y f rom h i s c ode f en da n t. Bo t h de fend ant and co de fend ant Ca nt o ra l we re cha rg ed wit h ag gr ava t ed dis cha rg e o f a fire ar m in re lat io n t o a J uly 2 00 5 s ho o t ing. De fend ant wa s a lso cha rg ed wit h un law ful u se o f a weapon by

a fel on. Prior to trial , defen

dant fi le d an answer asserti

ng sel f-def ense as an af f i rm ati v e def ense wh erea s C an toral f i l ed an answ er as se rti n g th at th e S tate wou l d b e u n ab l e to prove hi m gui lty bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. Defendan

t’s atto rney

fi le d a m ot ion to sever1-08-0655

2

defendan t’s t rial from Cantoral’s. At the heari

ng on def endan t’s motion, the trial

court in quired h ow Cantoral’s an

tici pated
ar gu men t t ha t t he St at e c o uld no t pr o ve him g uilt y beyo nd a r ea so nable do ub t wa s a nt ag o nist ic wit h defend ant ’s affirmat ive defens e o f self-de fense. Defend ant ’s at t or ney res po nded t hat he
cou ld “only

speculat e” t hat Cant or al m ight te stify

that he had no kno wledge and t hat de fendant’s act ions c ame as a sur pr ise and t his po t ent ial tes t imony wo uld co nfli ct wit h defend ant ’s t est imony that Cantoral had som

e i nvol vem ent in the in ci dent. The trial

court considered the argume nt, but den i ed th e m otion f or severan

ce. The cas e pr oc eed ed t o a jury t rial at which a d iff er ent t rial judg e pr eside d and t he followi ng ev ide nce was presented. Luis A vi l ez, M an uel Torres, Sa

ntiago Torresand Iv an

Vil l an ueva testif

i ed th at they

were occupants in

Av il ez’s car i n the earl y m ornin g hours of Jul

y 30, 2005. A

vi lez was dri

vi ng, Man uel was i n the f ront passenger seat wi

th Santiago be

hi nd hi m a nd Vi ll anuev a beh in d Av il ez. They
wer e dr iving into do wnt ow n t o C hicago t o g o t o s ome night clubs. The y had just exite d t he
ex pr es sw ay o nt o Oh io St r ee t an d w er e s t o pp ed at a r ed ligh t wh en a b lac k s po r t ut ilit y veh icle (SUV) p ull ed up next to thei

r car. Wh il e at the sto pli

ght near the Rock-n-Roll McDonald’s i n downtown Chi

cago, Avi lez, Manuel and San tiago testifi

ed that the driver of

the SUV fl

ashed a ga

ng si gn f or t he Satan Di sci pl es. A vi l ez, M an uel and San tia go i den tif i ed code f endan t Can toral as the dri ver of th e SUV
. Av i l ez de ni ed b ei ng i n a gan g, bu t Man uel and San tia go stated that they

were f orme r Lati n K i ngs . In r esp ons e, Sant iago “thr ew t he finger ” at t he dr iver by ext ending his middle finger . V ill anue va did not se e an

y ha nd g esture s.1-08-0655

3

Wh en the l i ght turn ed gre en , the SU

V acc elerated

and m oved i n f ront of Av i l ez’ s ca r. Av il ez testif ie d that t he pass enger of the SUV l eaned out of the wi

ndow and f

ired s everal gun sh ots a t the i r ca r. A vi l ez i de nti f i ed de f en da nt a s th e shoote r. M an ue l he ard the gun sh ots f rom t he pa sseng er side o f the car and s aw t he flash o f the gun. Sant iago and V ill anue va hea rd t he guns hot s, bu t did no t see fro m wher e t he sho t s we re fired. Avilez te st ifi ed t hat he fo llowed t he SUV until he n ot ic ed a poli

ce car at the next l

igh t. He t old the off

ic ers a person i

n the SUV had fired s hot s at t hem. T he po lice bega n t o fo llow t he SU V and Avilez co nt inued t o fo llow behind the p oli ce c ar. Se r ge an t Willaim B r ad ley t es t ified t ha t he wit ne ss ed t he sho o t ing
. He wo rke d p ar t - t ime
as a s ec ur it y gu ar d fo ra d o wn t o wn r es t au r an t , lo ca t ed at Oh io an d W ab as h. On t he nig ht o f Ju ly 30, 200 5, he wa s sit t ing in his car a fte r leaving his job whe n he hea rd a lou d no ise which he bel ie ved to be a gunsh

ot . He looked up and saw “a dark SUV with a ma le han gin g out pointi

ng a la rge calib er weapon beh

in d hi m.” Sergean

t Bradley observed the m

an f ire two rounds. He ide ntif ie d defen dant as the sh

oot er. He call

ed 911 and proceeded to foll ow the SUV as it turned left o nt o Wa bash. Ser gea nt Bra dley not iced a n unmar ked squ ad c ar and he wave d t o t he ca r a nd tol d the of

f i cers tha t the SUV ha d f i red sh ots ou t of the ca r. Th ose of f i cers got i n f ron t of Sergeant Bradle

y a nd eventually

curbed the SUV on On

tario, near Rush Street. Sergeant Bradley requested an off

ic er to return to Ohi

o St reet with hi

m to look for shel

l c asi ngs. One casi ng was recovered a

nd i nv en torie d. Off ic ers Christopher Din

gle and Jose Torres testifi

ed that Sergeant Bradley

fl agged them down and i

nf ormed them

that people i

n the SUV were sh

oot in g. They began to fol low the SUV and acti vated thei r emergen

cy li ghts on the f

ront o f the ca

r. The SUV pull

ed over and Can

to ral1-08-0655

4

and def endan t were arrested. Off

ic er Din gle searched the v

ehi cl e and f ound a gun i

nsi de a storage
com pa rtm en t i n th e rea r p as se n ger s i de of th e S UV . Th

e of f i cersalso p atte d down

th e oc cu pa n ts of A vi l ez’ s ca r and se arch

ed th ei r car. N o weapons we

re f ound i n thei r posse ssi on or i n the ca r. An e vid en ce t ec hnic ian lat er r ec o ve r ed a b ulle t ab o ve t he r ea rwh ee l o f t he SU V. A fo r en sic sci entis t t estif ie d that t he b

ull et and shel

l c asi ng were f ired f rom the gun f

ound in si de the SUV. Cl ose to the end of the State’s case , Cantoral’s attorney adv is ed the trial

court that defend ant ’s at t or ney had infor med him that defend ant intend ed t o t est ify t hat Cant or al had t he gun i n the ca r and he told d ef endan t to get the gun

and f i re i t at the pe opl e i

n the other c ar. Cantoral’s

atto rney asked f or sanctions b ecause thi s was diff erent from

defen dant’s previ

ous assertion that he a

cted in self-def ense. Can

to ral’ s atto rney

requested that defendan

t be preven

ted f rom c ha ngi ng h i s de f en se b eca use thi s new de f

en se w as a

ntag oni sti c to Can

toral ’sdef

en se. De f en da nt’ s a ttorn ey res pon de d that d ef

en da nt woul d te sti f y tha t he an d C an toral were i n f ea r f or their l iv es and af ter an in teraction with C antoral, he f ired the gun

in self-def ense. Def ense couns el ad m i tted th at he h ad not pres en

ted the se de tai l s a t the he ari ng on h i s p retr i al moti on f or severan ce. The State asked that defendan t be estopped from testif

yi ng that he recei

ved the gun fr o m Ca nt o r al w hile C an t o r al’ s a t t o rne y as ke d fo ra mis t r ial. T he t r ial c o ur t st at ed t ha t it wo uld be taken und er adv i sem en t and would rul

e i f def endan t testi f i ed. Af ter the S tate reste d, both

def endan ts m oved f or a di rected f i ndi ng, w hi ch the tri al court denied for eac h defend ant . T he t rial co ur t also ru led t hat defend ant co uld no t t est ify as t o a ny conv ersa tion between hi m sel f and Can toral be caus e i t was h ears ay . Defe ndan t t hen testifi ed on hi s own beh

al f. He adm

itted that he was on parole f rom a 14- ye ar sentence f

or residential

burglary. He stated t hat he h ad known Can

to ral f or about 2 1⁄21-08-0655

5

m onths be caus e def

endan t was dati ng C an toral ’ssi ster. On t he night of Ju ly 30, 2 005 , C ant or al called d efenda nt and t hey made p lans t o g o t o t he house o f one of defendant’s ex- girlf riends. He planned t o intro duce Cant or al to his ex-girlfriend’s st epmo t her . T hey went t o t he ho use , bu t t hey “wer en’t feeling t he moo d” s o t hey left and deci ded to go to the Hous e of Bl ues . Def endan t testi f i ed th at Can

toral drove and they got off of the ex pres swa y on Oh i o Street. Wh il e they were stopped at a ligh

t near the Rock-n-Roll

McDonal

d’s, def endan t not ic ed Cantoral “ex chan gin g words” with the other car. Defen dant testif ie d that all

of the occupants of the other car were flash

in g Latin Ki ng signs. When

defendan t st arted to respond with Canto ral’s actions, t he t rial co ur t and d efenda nt ’s at t or ney admo nished him in a sidebar not t o t est ify abo ut anything Cant or al said t o him and a nything he s aid t o C ant or al. T he t rial co ur t also not ed t hat at t hat po int it f ound that “there is

nothin g antagoni stic ab out the si tuation thus fa

r.” Defend ant re sumed his te st imony. Afte r t he light chang ed, t hey co nt inued s t ra ight and t he ot her car got o ut o f a l

eft-turn lan

e and “ jum ped” beh in d them. Def

endan t t hen saw the passe

nger make m otion s un der the das

hb oard. De f

endan t though t the pa sse

nge r was goi ng to get a gun . Def endan t then crawl ed to the b ack of

the SU V an d “ grab be d the thi ng” f rom a com partm en t. Defe ndan t said the weapon was wrapped i n a towel. Def

endan t sat back in

to the passen

ger seat and tried to calm

down, but he saw the car “ speedi ng up on hi

s side of the truck.” He did n ot see a gun i n the other car, but he m

oved the sl

ide on the gun i

n hi s possessi on to ma ke sure i t was loaded. He “ stuck [hi s] righ t hand out t he b ack of the truck downwards and [h e] fi red two
r o un ds o ff at t he gr o un d. ” D efe nd an t sa id h e s t uc k h is bo dy o ut o f t he win do w t o fire wit h his
r igh t ha nd
. His left ha nd ha d p r ev io us ly bee n d ama ge d b y a g un sho t an d h e w as un ab le t o ho ld1-08-0655

6

th i n gswi th i t. A f ter f i ri n g th e g unsh ots , he th oug h t th e oth er ca r lef t an d h e put th e g un b ack i n to the c omp artm

en t. Def endan t adm i tted that he us ed to be

a La tin Di sci pl e, but he

wasno l onger a me mb er at t he tim

e of the sh

oot in g. Cant or al te st ifi

ed in his o wn de fense. He d enied ha ving any pr ior or cur re nt gang aff il ia tion. Cantoral den

ie d hav in g a gun i n the car or on hi s person. He stated that he knew de fen da nt be ca us e d efe nd an t wa s d at ing his s ist er . He pic ke d u p d efe nd an t ar o un d 1 a. m. o n Ju ly 30, 2005. He deni ed stopping an yw here be fore goin

g downtown. Cantor al

deni ed seei ng an ot her
car wit h fou r men in it a fte r e xiting t he exp re sswa y. He also denied flashing a ga ng sign a t t he occupants of a car. He stated that whil e driv in g on Ohi o St reet, he heard sh

ot s. Cantoral stated t hat he did no t see anything. He d id no t see defend ant slide o ut of t he pa sseng er windo w, but he saw hi m ge t back i nto t he car wi

th a gun i n hi s han d. Cantoral sai

d he was s

hocked and as

ked defend ant , “w hat t he f[- - - ] is go ing o n.” He s aid de fendant went t o t he bac k o f the SU V and then returned to t he pass enger seat. Cantoral stated that he kept drivi ng to get o ut o f the area unti l he waspul l ed ov er by

the p oli ce. Af ter del i berati ons, th

e j ury f ound C an toral not gui l ty of aggra va ted di sch arge of a f i rearm and fo und d efenda nt guilt y of ag gr avat ed d ischar ge o f a firear m and unlaw ful use o f a wea po n by a fel on. Defen

dant’s attor ney

fi le d a m ot ion f or a new trial

and n ot ed that the deni al

of his pretrial motion f or severance as

well as the trial

court ’s rul

in g that defenda

nt could not testify

about actions a nd s tatem en ts of C an toral prev en ted def endan t from be i ng a bl e to prese nt h i s de f en se. At the heari

ng on the m

ot ion, the tria

l c ourt ruled that the pretrial motion f or severance was pr op er ly denied and t he r est rict ion o n defend ant ’s t est imony did no t impair his ability to pr ese nt hi s def ense . The c ourt a

l so f oun d that the d ef

en se s w ere

not a nta gon i sti c a nd de ni ed the moti on1-08-0655

7

f or a ne w tri al . Sub seq

uen tly , the tri al court sen tenc ed de f

endan t to concurrent term

s of 20 y ears in pr iso n fo r a gg ra vat ed dis cha rg e o f a fir ea rm a nd 1 2 ye ar s in p ris o n fo r u nlaw ful u se o f a
wea po n by a felon. Thi s appeal

followed. On appe al , de f

en da nt a rguestha t hi s tri al sh oul d have b een s evere d f

rom the tri al of codefen dant Cantoral b ecause h

e and Can to ral prese

nted antagoni stic def

enses . Defen

dant has fram ed this chal le nge on two gro unds: (1) the trial court erred in

fai li ng to grant a severance b ef oretrial an d d uri n g tri al as an tag oni sm arose an d ( 2) h i s a ttorn ey wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai l i n g to ensure that def

endan t and Cantoral were trie d separately. Defen dant adm its i n hi s openi ng bri ef that “ [w]hethe

r [hi s] attorne y wasi ne f f ecti ve and the tria l j udge erred depe nds on wh ethe r there were grounds for severance.” “Gen erall y, def endan ts who are joi

ntly in dic ted are to be j ointl

y tri ed unl

ess a sepa rate t rial is necess ary to avoid prej udic e to o ne of the de fen dants.” People v . Mahaf

fey , 165 Ill . 2d 445, 469 (199 5). “A joi

nt tr ial pro motes eco nomy

, reliabil ity, and consistency i

n the judi cial pro cess. In a j oint trial, the jury

obtains a m ore complete v

ie w of al l the a cts underl yi ng the ch arges than
wo uld be p os sible in separ at e t rials. Fro m this pe rsp ect ive, t he jur y may be able t o d et er mine more rel ia bl y the guil t o r in nocence of

a particul ar defen dant ***.” Mahaf

fey , 165 Ill . 2d at 469. “A defend ant moving fo r se ver ance must st at e ho w he w ou ld be pr ejudice d by a joint trial .” Peo ple v. McCa nn , 34 8 I ll. A pp . 3d 32 8, 33 5 ( 20 04 )
. “Me r e a pp r eh en sio n o f pr eju dic e is not enough.” McCa nn , 348 Ill . App. 3d at 335. Prejudi ce requi rin g severan ce occurs when

(1) codefen dants' def enses are antagoni stic, whe

re the trial

becom es m ore o f a contest between
co de fen da nt s t ha n be t we en t he St at e a nd de fen da nt s o ro ne pr o t es t s his inno ce nc e w hile1-08-0655

8

condem ni ng the other, or ( 2) statements by codefen dant im pli catin g the defe ndan t are admi tt ed but the def

endan t is una bl e to cross-e

xa m i ne the c odef endan t bec aus e the

f orme r does n ot testif y . People v . Rice , 2 86 I ll. App. 3d 3 94, 403 (1 996 ). “All ega t ions t hat a co defend ant 's t heo ry o f the case i s i nconsistent or co ntradictory to the defen dant's is not suff

ic ie nt to warrant severan

ce.” McCa nn , 348 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 335.

“ A moti on f or s ev eran ce i s to b e f i l ed pri or to th

e c om men cemen t of trial an d m us t sta te how the defe

ndan t wil l b e prejudi

ced by a j oint trial ; m

ere apprehensi ons are not enough.” Ri ce , 286 Ill. App . 3 d at 402 ; see also 725 ILC S 5 /1 14- 8 ( West 200 4) . “I n ru ling on a s ever ance , t he
co ur t is to make a pr edict ion abo ut t he likelihoo d o f pre judice a t t rial, t aking int o a cco unt ‘t he pa pe rs pre sente d, th

e a rgu men ts of cou ns el , an d a ny othe r kn owl edgeof the ca se de ve l ope d f

rom the proceedin

gs.’ ” Ri ce , 286 Ill . App. 3d at 402, quo ting Pe opl e v . D augh

er ty , 102 Ill . 2d 533, 541 (1984). The trial

court ’s rul

in g on a m ot ion f or severance wi

ll not be reversed ab sent an abuse of d i scre tion
. McCa nn , 348 Ill . App. 3d at 335. In revi ewi ng a trial court ’s pretrial

deni al of a mot ion fo r se ver ance , w e may co nsider only t he ar gument s made by defenda nt and no t t he sub seq uen t hap pen i ngs at tria l
. Ri ce , 286 I ll . App. 3d at 402. Ho wever, “the tr ial cour t has a continui ng duty a t all stages of trial

to grant a severan

ce i f prej udic e appears.” Ri ce , 286 Ill . App. 3d at 40 2. Her e, defend ant co nt ends t hat his defens e wa s ant ago nistic w ith Ca nt or al’s de fense a nd warranted severan

ce. Defen

dant and Can

to ral were j ointl

y i ndicted and charged wi

th aggravated di scha rge of a f i rea rm . De f en da nt wasal l eg ed to ha ve be en the i nd i vi dua l wh o f i red the we ap on whi l e Ca ntoral wascharged

und er a theory

of a ccoun tabi l i ty f or def endan t’s acti ons. Defend ant ’s at t or ney fil

ed a mot ion fo r se ver ance , w hich st at ed t hat “defend ant believes t hat t he1-08-0655

9

Af fi rmati ve Def ense h e i s prepared to pr esent and a rgue in the trial of thi s m atter wil l pres ent an app ar ent and r eal co nfli

ct wit h t he de fense a nd ar gument pr ese nt ed o n behalf of his co -d efenda nt
an d that s ai d c onf l i ct w i l l res ul t i n a ctu al pre j udi ceto thi s def en da nt. ” A t the he ari ng on de fend ant ’s mo t io n fo r s eve ra nce , d efe nse co uns el a rg ue d t hat de fend ant ’s a nt icipa t ed se lfdef en se c l ai m wasan tagonisti c wi

th Ca ntoral ’san

tic i pated re l i ance on

reas onab l e doubt. However, defen

dant’s attor ney

adm itted that he could n

ot “state with an

y great speci

fi ci ty wha t the co -defendant ’s defense is going to be, ” but he d id not t hin k it wo uld suppo rt defendant’s def en se a nd on l y spe cul ated about a sce

na ri o in whi ch an tagonism could arise. Th

e tri al court
consi de red de f en da nt’ s a rgu men t, but f oun d that e ve n i f Ca ntor al tes ti f i ed tha t he di d n ot know wh at wa s g o ing t o o cc ur , t he co ur t co uld no t se e h o w t ha t wo uld be inc r iminat ing o ran t ag o nist ic to defen dant’s sel f-def ense cl ai m. In i ts ruli ng, the trial

court stated: “Base d o n t he ar gument s t hat I ha ve hea rd upo n t he sp ecul ati on wh at c o-d ef en da n t m i gh t sa y , i t doe sn ’t a

pp ea r that a co-defenda

nt has a [sic ] ‘e yew it ne ss ’ t o wh at o cc ur r ed , wo uld be in any different po sitio n t han t hat of S t at e wit ness o r inde pend ent wit ne ss . I f t he as se r t io n is, I wa s ju st ifying d o ing wh at all p eo ple say I d id, w het her a co -d efenda nt , e yewitne ss as suming t hat is the
cas e I ca n a t thi s poi nt b ase d on a

gai n she er sp ecul

ati on wh at Mr. [Ca ntor al ] m i gh t sa y , I c an ’t s eean

an tag oni sti c d ef en se base d on wh at’sbe en

pres en ted at this ti

me.” Ba se d on th e p re trial

repr es en tati on s, we f i n d th at th e tr i al cou rt d i d n ot ab us e i ts dis cretion i

n den yi ng the m ot ion f or severance. Def

endan t’s atto rney

did n ot off er any evi dence1-08-0655

10

from dis covery to establ

is h how Can

to ral’ s testim

ony would i

ncri mi nate def endan t nor how a reasonabl e doubt defen se would b e antagoni stic to defen dant’s cl ai m of self-def ense. The

trial court considered the argume nts and trie d to env

is ion the possi

ble scena rio that defense counsel
ra ised be for e de clining to find ant ago nism. This d ecisio n was not an abu se o f discr et ion. We also find defend ant ’s r eliance o n t he de cision in Peo ple v. Mur phy , 93 Ill . App. 3d 606 (1981), t o be m

is pla ced. In that case, two defendan ts were tried joi

ntly and f ound guil ty of arm ed
r o bbe ry. O ne de fen da nt t es t ified t ha t he sp en t t he en t ire ev en ing o f t he cr ime a t ho me, wh ile his
co defend ant t est ifi

ed t hat t hey bot h had be en pr ese nt at t he sc ene o f the cr ime. The co defend ant added, however, that he was away from the vi ctim but saw the def

endan t t al kin g to her and tha

t the def endan t la ter gav e hi m her car k eys. Mur phy , 93 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 608. The app el

l ate court he ld t ha t t he de fen da nt ’s “e xp lan at io n t ha t [ his c o de fen da nt ’s ] t es t imo ny w o uld implic at e h im, th ereb y con tra di cti n g h i s a l i b i an d th at th e p oss i b i l i ty of pr ej udi ce wa s a b sol ute , w as suf f i ci en t to show that the defen

ses were an

tagonisti c.” Mur phy , 93 Ill . App. 3d at 612. Defe ndan t asserts that as in the Mur phy case, Can

to ral’ s testim

ony c ontradicted defend ant ’s t est imony and implicat ed him in the s hoo t ing. H ow ever , u nlike in Mur phy , no o ne is dispu t ing t hat defend ant was pr ese nt and d id, in fact , sho ot t he gu n t ow ar d t he o t her car . T he circu msta nces pr ese nt ed in Mur phy were signifi

cantly m or e tr oubling si

nce the de fendant’s defen se was that he was

not present at t he scen

e of the cri

me whi le hi s codefen

dant in crim in ated hi m by pl ac i ng hi m at the s cene

an d i n c onv ers ati on w i th th e v i cti m . Such an tag oni sm i s n ot present here as

Cantoral’s

testim ony di d not im pli cate hi m i n a sh oot in g in whi ch def endan t had
ass erted h i s i nn ocence. We poi nt out that defenda

nt has n ot ci ted a case i

n wh ic h a def ense of self-def ense was1-08-0655

11

fou nd t o be ant ago nistic w ith a c od efenda nt ’s r eas ona ble do ubt defens e. Inst ead , w e find t hat t he dec ision in People v . Lovel ady , 221 Ill . App. 3d 829 (1991), support s our conclusi on that defend ant ’s claim of se lf-defens e is no t ant ago nistic w ith his co defend ant ’s r eas ona ble do ubt
argu men t. In that cas e, the

def endan t and a code f endan t were tried j oin

tly f or fi rst deg ree m urder, t ho ug h t he de fen da nt wa s t r ied by a ju ry wh ile t he co de fen da nt ha d a be nc h t r ial. Pr io rt o t r ial, the def endan t had f i l ed a m otion to seve r, whi ch the tri al court i ni tia l l y gran ted, but l ater rev

erse d. The evidenc e pr ese nt ed a t t rial sho wed t hat t he de fendant and t he co defend ant wer e dr iving
around to the code f

endan t’s m other’ s ga rage s o the code f

endan t coul d ch ange th e oi l

i n h i s ca r. Anot her friend jo ined t hem. While dr iving to t he ga ra ge, t hey pas sed a man and a wo man and t he fri end stated that t he m

an was one

of the people w

ho had ch ased the codefe

ndan t’s brother earli

er t hat night . T he co defend ant pulled u p t o t hem and a ske d t he man if he had a pr oblem. The friend t est ifi ed t hat t he de fendant pas sed a gu n t o t he co defend ant , w ho s hot at t he man. The codefen dant testif ie d that he saw the vi

ctim move as though he m

igh t be reachi

ng f or a gun. He took a gun

f rom th e def endan t and shot to sca

re of f the v i cti m . He di d not i nten d to shoot hi

m . In c ont ra st , t he de fendant t est ifi ed t hat he ga ve t he co defend ant t he gu n ear lier in the night because the codefen

dant needed i

t for pro tection. Defen

dant did n ot pay attention to what was happ ening in t he alley and w as list ening t o t he r adio . Whe n he loo ked t o his left , he saw t he codef endan t fi re the gun . Lovelady , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 831-34. On appe al , th e d ef

en da nt a rgued tha t the tri al cou rt er red i n d en y i ng hi s p retr i al moti on f or s ev eran ce . Th e rev i ewi n g c our t disa gr ee d a n d c oncl uded th at th e rec ord sh owe d th at prior to t rial t he de fendant failed t o p ro duc e any fact s t hat t he co defend ant wo uld ac cus e him of t he sho ot ing and w ou ld be ant ago nistic t o his d efense . T he co ur t not ed t hat t he co defend ant1-08-0655

12

co nt ende d t hat he ac t ed in se lf-defens e, while the defend ant denied any involvement in the sho ot ing, t hat he wa s mere ly prese nt in the c ar . T he co defend ant did no t co ndemn t he de fendant as the perpetrato r of the shooting. The Lovelady cou rt f oun d th at th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts di scre ti on i n den y i n g th e m oti on f or s ev eran ce an d n oted th at th e def ense s w ere, at m

ost , contrad i ctory , not an

tagonisti c. Lovelady , 22 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 83 6. “T he ‘me r e c o nt r ad ict io n in testim ony of two defendan

ts as to what happen

ed on the day

of the cri me does not render defen ses suf fi ci ently antagoni stic to constitute reversible error. ’ ” Lovelady , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 836, quot in

g People v . Lekas , 155 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 39 1, 408 ( 1987)
. While t he as se r t ed de fen se s a r e r ev er se d in t his c as e— de fen da nt r ais ed se lf-d efe nse wh ile Cant or al denied any involvement —t he r eas oning re mains the same. Defend ant failed t o o ffer any evi dence to support hi s pretrial argumen t t hat the defe

nses were antagoni stic. Def

endan t had ad mit t ed t o firin g t he we ap o n, t ho ug h it wa s, he co nt en de d, in se lf-d efe nse . Lik e t he de fen da nt in Lovelady , C ant or al’s de fense w as t hat he wa s “mere ly prese nt at t he sc ene o f the cr ime and no
m ore,” i t was exc ul patory and a de ni al of a ny i nv olv em en t in the shooti

ng. Lovelady , 22 1 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 836 . Ca ntor al ’s de ni al of f l ashi ng ga ng si gn s w asus ed

to excul pa te h i m se l f , not i ncri m i na te def endan t. Defend ant also asse rt s t hat t he t rial co ur t had a co nt inuing du t y to allow fo r se ver ance and the c ourt fa

i l ed to sev

er def endan t’s trial wh en the a ntag oni sti c def

en ses arose d uri ng th e tri al
. We poi nt out that a dif

feren t judge presi

ded over the trial

than the j udge who considered defen dant’s pretrial

motion f or severance. Def

endan t argues that t hi s antagoni sm was exacerb ated at t rial

by Cantoral’s

atto rney ’s obj ections to defen dant’s testim

ony, wh ic h the trial
co ur t exclud ed a s inadmissible hear say. D efenda nt asse rt s t hat he wo uld have t est ifi ed t hat he1-08-0655

13

sho t in self-defe nse a fte r a n excha nge w ith Ca nt or al in which bot h men believed a pas seng er in the ot her car was reaching f

or a g un and they f

eared for t hei

r li ves. Howev er, the record s hows that de f endan t’s pr oposed testim

ony off ered m uch more in crim in ating e vi dence agai

nst Cantoral than

defen dant now asserts. On the second da y of trial near the en

d of the State’s case, Cantoral’ s atto rney rais ed an issue wi

th the trial

court . He
asse rt ed t hat defend ant ’s at t or ney advised him that defend ant wo uld t est ify t hat Cant or al had t he gun i n the car an

d directed def

endan t t o get t he gun

and i t was at Cantor al ’s request that defen dant fi red the gun. None of this i ntended testim

ony was rai sed by

defen dant in the pretrial
m oti on f or s evera nc e. The State adde d that n

o one ha d a sked to rev i si t the seve ran cei ss uepri or to trial and requested

that de f endan t be prohi bi ted f rom m aki ng a ny repre sen tations as to where he rece i ve d the f i rearm. Can

toral ’sattorney

ask ed f or san cti ons a nd a m i stri al . The

tria l court de nie d t he r eq ue st fo rsa nc t io ns, bu t t o o k t he mo t io n fo ra mis t r ial u nd er ad vise men t un t il defen dant’s testim

ony. La ter, imm edi ately prior to defendan

t’s testim ony, the parti es revisi

ted thi s i ssue. Def

endan t’s a ttorney adv i sed the p arti es that def

endan t in tended to testi f

y that the re was di scussi

on between h

im self an d Cantoral, i

ncl udin g that Cantoral told hi

m wh ere the gun was in the c ar and t o g et it and t hat t he ca r t hat had be en o n Cant or al’s side was behind t hem and
com i ng up on de f en da nt’ s s i deof

the ca r. Th e tri al cou rt de cl i ne d to rul e on

Ca ntor al ’s moti on f or a m i stri al unti l the re l ev an

t tim e i n de f endan t’s testim ony . Duri

ng d ef endan t’s testim ony, a sid eb ar wa s he ld o ut sid e t he pr es en ce o f t he jur y. T he t r ial c o ur t ad vise d d efe nd an t t ha t he co uld not t est ify abo ut what Cant or al was t hinking o r a nything Ca nt or al said t o d efenda nt . At t he end of t he side bar , t he t rial co ur t not ed t hat “[a] t t his po int in t ime I find tha t t her e is no t hing
an tagonisti c ab out the si

tuati on thu s f

ar.”1-08-0655

14

Hearsay is an out-o f-court stat em

ent off ered to pr ove the trut h of the m atter ed asserted. People v . Gonzalez , 3 79 I ll. App. 3d 9 41, 954 (2 008 ). Ho weve r, an o ut -o f-co ur t st at ement of f ere d to s how

the ef f ec t on th e l i stene r’ s m i nd or wh y a l i stene r acted the wa y he di d i s n ot he arsa y and i s ad m i ssi bl e. Gonzal ez , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 954. Defendan t argues that his i

ntended tes ti m ony ab out h i s i nte racti ons wi th C an toral sh oul d have b een a

dm i tted as show

i ng the ef f ec t of Cantoral’s

statements on def

endan t’s actions. W

e di sagree. Def

endan t’s atto rney

stated t hat defendan t planned to st ate t hat Canto ral told hi m wh ere the gun was and to retr iev e it. These statem en ts were i nten ded to es tabl

i sh wh ere de f

endan t got the gun , i.e. , the trut h of the m atter
asse rt ed. Addit ionally, de fendant do es no t ar gue t hat t he pr op os ed t est imony fi t s wit hin any he ar sa y exc ep t io n no rdo we find an y exc ep t io n t o be ap plic ab le in t his c as e. T he r efo r e, ev en if
seve ra nce ha d bee n gr ant ed, t his te st imony wo uld no t have be en ad missibl e. Acco rd ingly, the testim ony was i nadm is si ble hearsay

and properly

excl uded. Fur t her , t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion in faili ng t o g ra nt a se ver ance dur ing t r ial. T he de fen se s p r es en t ed by d efe nd an t an d C an t o r al w er e n o t an t ag o nist ic, bu t mer ely contrad i ctory . Can

toral den i ed an y i nv olv em en t in the c i rcum stan ces l eadi ng u p to the sh

ootin g. He d id no t inculpat e de fendant while excu lpat ing himself as defend ant had a lread y admitt ed t o t he shooting. Def

endan t contended at t rial

that he reasonabl

y b elie ved that he f

eared for his lif

e, caus i ng h i m to fi re the gun i n s elf -def en se. As we

prev i ousl y poi nted out, “[t]he ‘m

ere contradiction i

n testim ony of two defendan

ts as to what happen

ed on the day

of the cri me does not render defen

ses suf fi ci ently antagoni stic to constitute reversible error. ’ ” Lovelady , 22 1 I ll. App. 3d at 836, quot in

g People v . Lekas , 155 I ll . App. 3d 39 1, 408 ( 1987). Here, t he defen dants’ testi m on y wa s c on tra di ctor y , not an tag oni sti c. A cc ordi

n gl y , the tr i al cou rt di d n ot b re ach i ts d uty1-08-0655

15

gr an t a s ev er an ce du r ing t r ial. Neverthel ess, even if the trial court erred in

fai li ng to grant a severance, suc h error was harm le ss be yond a reasonabl

e doubt. See Peo ple v. Nunn , 184 Il l . Ap p. 3d 25 3, 267- 68 (19 89). He r e, t he ev ide nc e a ga inst de fen da nt wa s o ve rwh elming
. T he men in t he ca rbe hind de fen da nt all test if ied to varyi

ng degr ees abou t t he circumstances o f the shoo ting, includi ng Avi lez’s ide ntif ic ation of def

endan t as the person who fi

red a gun at hi s car. Sergeant Bradle y w itnes sed the shooti ng a nd s aw de f

endan t le an i ng out of the p ass enger wi

ndow to fi re a gu n. M oreover , defen dant adm itted to fi rin g the gun, but asserted a cl ai m of self-def ense. The

evi dence was
su f f i ci en t f or th e j ury

to rej ec t de f

en da nt’ s s el f -de f en se arg um en t an d a seve red tri al woul d n ot have aff ected the out come. Fi nal ly , defen dant asserts that hi s atto rney was i nef fecti ve f or faili ng to ensure that hi s trial
wa s s ev ered f rom Ca n toral ’s trial . Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , de f en da n t con ten dsth at ( 1) h i s a

ttorn ey f ai l ed to
su pp o r t his p r et r ial mo t io n fo rse ve r an ce wit h su fficie nt de t ails sho win g a nt ag o nism; ( 2) his atto rney fai le d to request a mistrial

when antagoni sm

arose at t rial ; an

d (3) hi s atto rney “capi tulated” to t he trial

court ’s rul

in g that defenda

nt was prohi

bi ted from testif

yi ng ab out Cant or al’s st at ement s imm ediat ely befor e t he sho ot ing. T he St at e mainta ins tha t defend ant
rece i ve d proper r

epres en tation at al l stage s of the tri al
. Claims of inef

fectiv e assist ance of trial counsel are r esolved und er the standard set f orth in Strick land v. Was hing ton , 46 6 U. S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct 2052 ( 1984). I n Strick land , the Sup rem e C ou rt de lin eate d a tw o-p art tes t to use wh en evalu atin g wh eth er a de fend ant w as den ied the e ff

ective assistanc e of cou nsel in vio lation of the sixt h ame nd me nt. Un der Strick land , a def endant mus t demons tr at e tha t coun sel ' s perf

orma nce wa s def

ici ent a nd tha t s uch def

ici ent1-08-0655

16

pe rforman ce s ub stan tially p reju dic ed de fend ant. Strick land , 46 6 U. S. at 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d a t 693, 10 4 S. C t. at 20 64 . To de mo nst rate p erform anc e d eficie nc y, a defen dan t mu st es tabl ish that
co un sel's p erform anc e was be low an o bje ctiv e stan dard of reaso nab len ess. Peopl e v. Edwards , 19 5 Ill . 2d 142, 163 (2001). I n evaluating suf ficient prejudice, “ [t]he defendant must show that there is
a r ea sona ble probabi lit

ytha t, but f or c ounsel ' s unpr of

ess iona l er

ror s, the resul t of

the p roc eedi ng would ha ve be en dif

f ere nt. A rea sona

ble probabi lit

yis a pr obabi lit ysuf f ici ent t o under

mine confidence in t

he outcome.” Strick land , 46 6 U .S. at 69 4, 8 0 L . Ed . 2d at 69 8, 1 04 S. Ct . at 20 68
. If a c ase may be dispo sed of o n t he gr ou nd o f lack o f sufficient p re judice, t hat co ur se sho uld be taken , and the

court ne ed n

ot ever c onsi

der the qua

l i ty of the a ttorney 's perf orma nc e. St rick land , 466 U.S. at 697, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 699, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. This de ter minationmustbe ma de on the basi s of th e en tire re co rd, n ot i sol ated ins tanc es. Peo ple v. Klup pel berg , 25 7 I ll. App. 3d 516, 52 6 (1 99 3). E ffective assist anc e o f cou nse l refers to co mp ete nt, n ot p erfect , repre sen tatio n. People v. Palmer , 16 2 Ill. 2 d 4 65 , 47 6 (1 99 4). In o rd er t o p ro ve ineffect ive assist ance of c ou nsel, d efenda nt must ove rc ome t he pr esu mpt ion t hat t he cha llenged c ond uct might be co nsider ed s ou nd t rial st ra t egy und er t he ci rcum stan ces . People v . Gil

es , 209 Ill . App. 3d 265, 269 (1991). Neither m is takes in strategy nor t he f act t hat anot her att orney wi th the benefi

t o f h in dsigh t wo uld hav

e handl ed the case di f f eren tly i ndi cates the tri al l awy er wa s i nc omp eten

t. Peo ple v. Yo ung , 341 Ill . App. 3d 379, 383 (20 03) . A

de ci si on th at i nv ol ve s a matte r of tri al stra tegy wi l l ty pical l y not s upp ort a c l ai

m of i ne f f ecti ve repre sen tation
. Peo ple v. Simmons , 342 I ll . App. 3d 18 5, 191 ( 2003). Defens e counsel is not required to make losin g motions or o bj ections i

n order to provide ef

fecti ve l egal
ass i stan ce. People v . Kel

le y , 304 Il l . Ap p. 3d 62 8, 636 ( 1999)
.1-08-0655

17

Here, we need n

ot consider whether def

ense couns el ’s pef

ormance was unreas onabl

e as defen dant cann ot establ is h suf fi ci ent prejudi

ce. As we h

ave prev iousl y h el d, the defenses pr ese nt ed by de fendant and C ant or al and d efenda nt wer e no t sufficient ly antag onist ic to war ra nt se ve r an ce an d d efe nd an t ’s t es t imo ny r eg ar din g C an t o r al’ s s t at eme nt s w as he ar sa y t ha t did no t fit within an ex

cept ion and pro perly excl uded. Defendant suffered no prejudice by hi s att or ney’s actions as the propo sed testim

ony was i nadm is si ble. Thus, any

action b y de fen dant’s attor ney would ha ve be en f rui tle ss a nd c an not sup port a clai m of i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel
. Fur t her , w e no t e t hat evidenc e pr ese nt ed w as o ver whelming. All four oc cup ant s o f the
ca r testi f i ed ab out the shooti

ng . A vi l ez , th e d ri ve r of the ca r, i de nti f i ed de f en da nt a s th e p ers on shooting. Sergeant Bradley observed the sh

oot in g from hi s car and al

so iden tif ie d defen dant as the shooter. He p

ursued th e SUV

and al erted othe r off i cers to the si tuati on. Th

ose of f i cers cur bed t he vehicle. A gun w as r eco ver ed fr om t he SU V. Addit ionally, a su bseq uent sea rc h of t he ot her car an

d its occupants di

d not fi nd an y weapons. Def

endan t admi tt ed to t he sh

oot in g, but t est ifi ed t hat he fear ed fo r his life and ac t ed in se lf-defens e. The jury re ject ed t his arg ument and fou nd de fendant guilt y. Bas ed o n t his evidenc e, defend ant canno t sho w t hat t he o ut co me of t he tria l would ha ve be en di f f eren t if his tri al wassev ered f rom C an toral
. Ba se d o n fo r eg o ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he de cis io n o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af f i rmed. CA HILL , P.J., an

d J. GO RDON , J., con

cur.