2020 IL App (1st) 180013-U 

Order filed: March 16, 2020 

 FIRST DISTRICT

FIFTH DIVISION

No. 1-18-0013 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent 

by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

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

 ) Circuit Court of 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. 

 ) 

v. ) No. 16 CR 4936 

 ) 

HERIANCE TURMAN, ) Honorable 

 ) James B. Linn, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. 

Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Delort concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for attempted murder is affirmed, where: (1) the evidence 

introduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find that defendant acted with the 

intent to kill, and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce 

evidence of defendant’s voluntary intoxication. 

¶ 2 A jury convicted defendant, Heriance Turman, of attempted murder and two counts of 

aggravated battery. The trial court found that the aggravated battery counts merged into the 

conviction for attempted murder and sentenced defendant to 22 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

defendant contends: (1) the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

his specific intent to kill, as is required to sustain a conviction for attempted murder; and (2) he 

was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel, where his trial counsel failed to introduce 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 2 -

evidence of his intoxication at the time of the incident in order to show that defendant lacked the 

specific intent to kill. For the following reasons, we affirm.

1

 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 Defendant was charged by indictment with attempted first degree murder and multiple 

counts of aggravated battery with respect to an incident involving Edward Morrison. The matter 

proceeded to a jury trial in July 2017. 

¶ 5 Mr. Morrison testified at trial that in March 2016, he worked as a police officer for Indiana 

University Northwest and had recently begun a part-time job, working as a security guard for Fidei 

Group with his uncle. Fidei Group assigned Mr. Morrison to an automobile impound lot located 

at 10303 South Doty Avenue (Doty), owned by the city of Chicago. The City contracted the towing 

services for Doty to United Road Towing, Inc. (URTI). The lot was filled with thousands of 

vehicles. To enter or leave the lot, a person had to drive to the front gate on Doty Avenue where a

URTI employee would open the gate to allow access. The main office was located in a trailer near 

the front gate. 

¶ 6 During night shifts, three URTI employees and one Fidei Group security guard staffed the 

lot; each company had its own uniform. URTI assigned each employee to occupy the office, 

control the front gate, or operate a forklift. The security guard was assigned to check in at the office 

upon reporting for duty, to drive around the lot in a vehicle provided by Fidei Group, to make an 

hourly check of the office lobby, and to make sure that the site was clear. 

1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this 

appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order stating with 

specificity why no substantial question is presented. 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 3 -

¶ 7 When at Doty, Mr. Morrison drove a black truck with the Fidei Group logo on the side and 

amber lights. The vehicle came equipped with a company telephone. Mr. Morrison also had a radio 

to communicate with the URTI employees. 

¶ 8 On March 6, 2016, Mr. Morrison, having only worked five or six shifts at Doty, took his 

uncle’s shift, set to begin at 6 p.m. and end at 6 a.m. the following day. When Mr. Morrison arrived, 

he checked in at the front office, drove the Fidei truck around the lot, and identified URTI

employees by their uniforms. 

¶ 9 Around 1:00 a.m. on March 7, Mr. Morrison stopped his vehicle at a high point where he 

was able to overlook much of the lot. A green minivan used by URTI employees pulled up next to 

Mr. Morrison. Defendant, wearing a URTI uniform, exited the van and approached the driver’s 

side of Mr. Morrison’s vehicle. 

¶ 10 Mr. Morrison rolled his window down and had a brief conversation with defendant. 

Defendant asked Mr. Morrison for a favor. Before Mr. Morrison could check to see if his vehicle

was in park, defendant reached through the window and attacked Mr. Morrison. At first, Mr. 

Morrison thought defendant was punching him in the face, but then felt a stinging pain and guessed 

defendant was using a knife. Mr. Morrison was stabbed seven to eight times, sustaining injuries to 

his face, ear, head, arm, and shoulder. Mr. Morrison pleaded for defendant to stop, but defendant 

continued. When Mr. Morrison tried to use his radio to call for help, defendant grabbed it.

¶ 11 Mr. Morrison put his car into drive and drove toward the office. Defendant held on to the 

car, but eventually let go. Mr. Morrison arrived at the office, asked for help, and pulled out his

gun. Defendant never entered the office.
No. 1-18-0013 

- 4 -

¶ 12 Mr. Morrison’s vehicle contained recording equipment which was running at the time of 

the attack. A video clip from the recording was published to the jury. Mr. Morrison described his 

truck and the attack as it was depicted on the video. 

¶ 13 The impound lot also had surveillance cameras. A video clip of defendant’s attack on 

Mr. Morrison from the camera just outside the office was published to the jury. His vehicle can be 

seen driving up to the office and Mr. Morrison can be seen exiting the vehicle and running into the 

office. A video clip from the camera just inside the office was also published to the jury. Defendant 

can be seen inside the office before the stabbing. Photos of Mr. Morrison’s vehicle, the office area 

to where he retreated, and defendant’s vehicle were admitted into evidence and published to the 

jury. 

¶ 14 An ambulance arrived and took Mr. Morrison to Christ Hospital where he received stitches 

to his face and staples to his head. He was discharged that same day. He later chose to have his 

stitches redone by a plastic surgeon. His face, head, and arm were permanently scarred. The police 

took photographs of Mr. Morrison’s injuries, which were admitted into evidence and published to 

the jury. Mr. Morrison testified that he attended physical therapy three times a week for four weeks 

to heal his arm injury, had suffered psychological damage, and was off of work for three months. 

¶ 15 Charles Craft testified that at the time of the incident, he had worked for URTI for fifteen 

years. He wore a URTI uniform, a dark grey jumpsuit with reflective stripes around the legs and 

arms. During his time, he became familiar with the other URTI employees. He and defendant had 

worked together for five or six years. 

¶ 16 Mr. Craft worked the same shift as defendant on March 6 and 7. Mr. Craft saw defendant 

in the office trailer just before their shift started at 11:30 p.m. Defendant was dressed in a URTI 

uniform and a hoodie. Mr. Craft identified defendant on the video from the camera inside of the 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 5 -

office. During his shift, Mr. Craft worked the front gate. He was responsible for physically opening 

the gate for the tow trucks and customers. That night, defendant drove around the lot in a “yard 

car,” which was a green van.

¶ 17 Shortly after 1:00 a.m., Mr. Craft opened the front gate for a tow truck driver. The green 

van came speeding up and exited onto Doty Avenue behind the tow truck. Employees were not 

allowed to drive the impounded vehicles off the lot. Mr. Craft could not see who was driving. Mr. 

Craft did not immediately report what he saw. Cameron Bowman, the URTI employee assigned 

to the forklift, approached Mr. Craft and they spoke about the green van. Mr. Craft returned to the 

office, but defendant was not there. 

¶ 18 A video clip from the tow yard surveillance camera near the front gate was shown to the 

jury. Mr. Craft was seen in the video opening the gate for a tow truck. The van can be seen exiting 

behind the tow truck. 

¶ 19 Chicago Police Detective Henry Barsch testified that in March 2016, he assisted Detective 

Roxana Hopps with an investigation regarding a stabbing. Detective Barsch ultimately returned to 

his headquarters and was present when defendant arrived at the station on his own. An evidence 

technician took defendant’s clothing which included a black hooded sweatshirt, a shirt, and pants. 

Defendant cooperated. 

¶ 20 Chicago Police Officer Jamie Bravo testified that on March 9, 2016, he responded to a call 

at Doty. There, Officer Bravo met another officer standing next to a box cutter. Officer Bravo 

stayed with the box cutter until Officer Angelo Marconi, an evidence technician at the time,

photographed and inventoried the box cutter. Officer Bravo identified photographs of the box 

cutter and the area where it was found. The photographs were admitted into evidence and published 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 6 -

to the jury. Officer Bravo also identified the box cutter and demonstrated how one would produce 

the box cutter’s blade.

¶ 21 Chicago Police Officer Jerry Doskocz2 testified that on March 7, 2016, he was working as 

an evidence technician. Detective Hopps gave him a black stocking cap, a black hooded sweatshirt, 

a black t-shirt, a black and gray belt, Timberland boots, a white tank top, dark gray and orange 

stripped work pants, and a light gray and orange striped work shirt with a URTI patch. Officer 

Doskozz packaged and inventoried the clothing, which he later identified in court. 

¶ 22 Detective Hopps testified that, on March 7, 2016, she was assigned to investigate a stabbing 

at an impound lot located at 10301 South Doty Avenue. At Doty, Mr. Morrison was being treated

for his injuries in the back of an ambulance. Detective Hops spoke to Mr. Morrison briefly and 

learned that he had sustained several stab wounds to his head and body. Mr. Morrison’s face was 

completely bandaged. 

¶ 23 The parties stipulated that Cook County State’s Attorney Investigator Mary Ember would 

testify that she collected and inventoried a buccal swab from defendant. 

¶ 24 The parties stipulated that Veronica Jackson, an expert in the field of forensic biology, 

would testify that when she received the box cutter, she swabbed the knife, handle, and trigger for 

possible cellular material and future DNA analysis. Ms. Jackson also examined a black knit hat, a 

hooded sweatshirt, a black t-shirt, a belt, boots, an undershirt, work pants, and a work shirt. She 

did not find blood-like stains.

2 The witness list names an Officer Doskocz, but the trial testimony refers to an “Officer Doskozz.”
No. 1-18-0013 

- 7 -

¶ 25 The parties stipulated that Youngfei Wu, an expert in the field of DNA analysis, would 

testify that he received the swabs from the box cutter and defendant’s buccal swap. He opined that 

there was insufficient human DNA on the swabs from the box cutter for DNA analysis. 

¶ 26 The State rested. The court denied the defendant’s motion for directed finding, and the 

defense rested without introducing evidence.

¶ 27 In closing argument, defense counsel argued that the State failed to prove defendant had 

the intent to kill because defendant used a box cutter, not a knife, and the victim’s injuries were 

not critical. The jury found defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery 

causing permanent disfigurement, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. 

¶ 28 During trial, defendant was represented by the Office of the Cook County Public Defender. 

After his conviction, defendant retained a new attorney who then filed a motion for a new trial. 

Therein, defendant’s new counsel alleged that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to introduce 

evidence then known to them indicating that, at the time of the incident, defendant was suffering 

from an addiction to Phencyclidine (PCP), thus negating the element of specific intent. 

Specifically, the motion alleged: 

“2. The [public defenders] who represented [defendant] did not present any evidence 

that [defendant] lacked the intent to kill because he was suffering a delusional episode 

because he was under the influence of [PCP], *** a dissociative drug. PCP was brought to 

market in the 1950s as an anesthetic pharmaceutical drug but was taken off the market in 

1965 due to the high prevalence of dissociative hallucinogenic side effects. *** Like many 

other drugs, PCP has been known to alter mood states in an unpredictable fashion, causing

some individuals to become detached, and others to become animated. PCP may induce 

feelings of strength, power, and invulnerability as well as a numbing effect on the mind. 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 8 -

Because of [sic] his prior attorneys failed to present this evidence to the jury prior counsels’ 

representation fell below the standard of reasonableness such that it affected the result of 

the trial in this case and secondly the defendant was prejudiced by this conduct by his prior 

attorneys. The jury could have been advised that [defendant] was not there lying in wait 

ready to attack Mr. Morrison because he was suffering from a drug induced delusion. The 

two men had never met before and Mr. Morrison and [defendant] did not have any grudges 

towards each other.” 

Defendant attached sixteen pages of medical records in support of his allegation. These medical 

records revealed that in the afternoon hours of the day of the incident, defendant went to the 

hospital and was exhibiting symptoms of withdrawal from PCP. 

¶ 29 At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, defendant’s new counsel argued that the State 

failed to prove defendant had the intent to kill because defendant only used a box cutter, Mr. 

Morrison only thought he was being punched, and the Mr. Morrison’s injuries were not lifethreatening. Further, the defendant could not have had the intent to kill because at the time of 

arrest, there was medical documentation showing that defendant “was suffering from PCP usage 

and/or withdrawal.” The court asked if defense counsel was “talking about voluntary intoxication,” 

and defense counsel responded that it was likely that it was voluntary intoxication. Defense counsel 

acknowledged that voluntary intoxication was not a defense in Illinois but argued that if the jury 

had known about defendant’s altered state, “acutely out of his mind,” it could not have found that 

defendant acted intentionally. Defense counsel indicated he was not arguing that defendant was 

insane.
No. 1-18-0013 

- 9 -

¶ 30 Defense counsel also acknowledged that he had spoken with trial counsel about their 

decision not to utilize evidence of defendant’s state of intoxication. Defense counsel stressed that 

“it was essential that the jurors know about [defendant’s intoxication].” 

¶ 31 The State stressed that defendant’s visit to the hospital took place 12 hours after the attack. 

The State argued that this evidence therefore did not establish that defendant had PCP in his system 

at the time of the attack.

¶ 32 The circuit court ruled that while defendant’s intoxication might be a factor in mitigation 

at sentencing, it was not relevant to the question of whether defendant had the intent to kill. The 

court denied the motion for new trial, stating that he would not second-guess trial counsel’s 

strategy.

¶ 33 After a sentencing hearing, the court merged the aggravated battery convictions with the 

attempted first degree murder conviction and sentenced defendant to 22 years’ imprisonment. 

Defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence was denied. Defendant timely appealed. 

¶ 34 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 35 On appeal, defendant first contends that his attempted murder conviction should be vacated 

because the State failed to prove that he had the specific intent to kill Mr. Morrison. Defendant

highlights that he did not know Mr. Morrison, never expressed an intention to kill him, Mr. 

Morrison’s injuries were not life threatening, and defendant wielded a box cutter instead of a more 

impactful weapon. 

¶ 36 The State has the burden of proving each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable 

doubt. People v. Brown, 2015 IL App (1st) 131873, ¶ 12 (citing People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 

2d 213, 224 (2009)). In determining whether there was sufficient evidence, we construe all of the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether any rational trier of fact 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 10 -

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In a jury trial, 

the jury’s credibility determinations are entitled to great weight. People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 

114-15 (2007). We will not overturn a criminal conviction unless the evidence is so unreasonable, 

improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Brown, 2015 

IL App (1st) 131873, ¶ 12 (citing People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009). 

¶ 37 A person commits attempted first degree murder when, acting with the intent to kill, he 

completes an act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of first degree murder. 

720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a)(1) (West 2014). Here, defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the 

evidence as to the element of intent.

¶ 38 Defendant’s intent to kill may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the 

character of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, or the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries. 

People v. Carlisle, 2015 IL App (1st) 131144, ¶ 59. “ ‘Such intent may be inferred when it has 

been demonstrated that the defendant voluntarily and willingly committed an act, the natural 

tendency of which is to destroy another’s life.’ ” People v. Green, 339 Ill. App. 3d 443, 451 (2003)

(quoting People v. Winters, 151 Ill. App. 3d 402, 405 (1986)). Evidence of intent to inflict great 

bodily harm is insufficient. People v. Jones, 184 Ill. App. 3d 412, 430 (1989). Whether defendant 

had an intent to kill is a determination for the trier of fact, and that finding will not be disturbed on 

appeal unless there is reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt. People v. Petermon, 2014 IL App 

(1st) 113536, ¶ 39. 

¶ 39 Here, defendant attacked Mr. Morrison as Mr. Morrison sat defenseless and trapped inside 

of his truck. Through the driver’s side window of the truck, defendant grabbed Mr. Morrison by 

the arm and vest, pulled him closer, and stabbed him with a box cutter seven to eight times in the 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 11 -

face, head, ear, arm, and shoulder. Viewed in light most favorable to the State, this evidence was 

strong evidence permitting the jury to find that defendant had the specific intent to kill. 

¶ 40 In addition, other circumstances surrounding the incident further demonstrated defendant’s 

intent to kill. Defendant continued to attack while Mr. Morrison was pleading for him to stop. 

Defendant prevented Mr. Morrison from calling for help when he took Mr. Morrison’s radio. 

Defendant even held on to Mr. Morrison’s truck after Mr. Morrison eventually put his truck into 

drive and drove to the office. After defendant fell off the truck, he fled the scene in a vehicle he 

was not authorized to drive outside of the lot. 

¶ 41 Nevertheless, defendant argues that the surrounding circumstances in this case contradict 

the conclusion that he acted with the intent to kill. Defendant notes that he did not have a motive

to kill Mr. Morrison and chose to use a box cutter instead of a more impactful weapon. 

¶ 42 As to motive, defendant argues that prior to the incident he did not know, threaten, or have 

a quarrel with Mr. Morrison. However, the State was not required to establish a motive to sustain 

a conviction for attempted murder. People v. Furdge, 332 Ill. App. 3d 1019, 1023 (2002). Although 

defendant did not directly express an intent to kill Mr. Morrison, the surrounding circumstances 

show that he deliberately approached Mr. Morrison, continuously stabbed Mr. Morrison despite 

pleas to stop, and showed no signs of letting up on the attack until Mr. Morrison drove off and 

defendant was no longer able to hold on to the moving truck. The jury could reasonably have found 

this evidence of intent to kill.

¶ 43 Defendant further contends that his use of a box cutter as opposed to some other weapon, 

along with Mr. Morrison’s non-life threatening wounds, proves that he acted with at most an intent 

to commit bodily harm or disfigurement, which is not sufficient to prove intent to kill. People v. 

Nuno, 206 Ill. App. 3d 163, 165 (1990). Defendant argues that the blade he used was short and 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 12 -

thin and not likely to be life threatening, while nevertheless conceding on appeal that it could inflict

a fatal injury. According to defendant, Mr. Morrison only suffered unpleasant and superficial 

wounds that were treated at the hospital within hours, proving that defendant only wielded the box 

cutter with the intent to commit bodily harm.

¶ 44 However, the evidence demonstrates that defendant used the box cutter in a deadly manner. 

Whether or not the injuries sustained by Mr. Morrison were life-threatening is irrelevant to 

defendant’s state of mind, if defendant had no way of knowing the actual severity at the time. See 

People v. Scott, 271 Ill. App. 3d 307, 211 (1994) (the use of bare hands can be considered a deadly 

weapon so as to support a finding of specific intent to kill). Here, defendant sliced and stabbed Mr. 

Morrison about the face, ear, head, arm, and shoulder, places that had great potential to cause 

death. Defendant sliced open Mr. Morrison’s face from the lower orbital bone to and through his 

lip, causing a deep, penetrating, and gaping wound. Mr. Morrison needed stiches for his face and 

staples for his head. Using a box cutter to this extent, with no signs of stopping until Mr. Morrison 

escaped, clearly shows that the jury could reasonably find that the defendant had the intent to kill 

Mr. Morrison. 

¶ 45 In sum, we find that the evidence in this case, including the character of the defendant’s 

assault on Mr. Morrison, his use of a deadly weapon, and the nature and extent of Mr. Morrison’s 

injuries, was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that defendant had the specific intent to kill 

Mr. Morrison. Carlisle, 2015 IL App (1st) 131144, ¶ 49. Accordingly, we will not disturb the 

jury’s finding that defendant possessed the required intent and reject defendant’s contention that 

the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense of 

attempted first degree murder.
No. 1-18-0013 

- 13 -

¶ 46 Defendant next argues that the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for new 

trial based on his assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant contends his trial 

counsel were ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of defendant’s voluntary intoxication, 

which would have established that defendant lacked the intent to kill Mr. Morrison. 

¶ 47 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that: (1) 

his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) he was 

prejudiced by this deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). 

Effective assistance means competent, not perfect representation. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 479-80. 

There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable 

professional assistance and not of incompetence. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397 (1998).

In addition, our supreme court has held that “Strickland requires actual prejudice be shown, not 

mere speculation as to prejudice.” People v. Bew, 228 Ill.2d 122, 135 (2008). A defendant has the 

burden of establishing any such prejudice. People v. Glenn, 363 Ill.App.3d 170, 173 (2006).

Failure to make the requisite showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice 

defeats the claim. People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 476-76 (1994). 

¶ 48 With respect to the first prong, defendant argues that trial counsels’ failure to introduce the 

available medical evidence of his addiction to PCP to show that he lacked the intent to kill “was 

an abdication, not an exercise, of trial strategy.” We disagree. 

¶ 49 Historically, Illinois recognized voluntary intoxication as an affirmative defense. See 720 

ILCS 5/6-3 (West 2000) (“A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition is criminally 

responsible for conduct unless such condition either: (a) Is so extreme as to suspend the power of 

reason and render him incapable of forming a specific intent which is an element of the offense; 

or (b) Is involuntarily produced and deprives him of substantial capacity either to appreciate the 
No. 1-18-0013 

- 14 -

criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”). However, the 

statute was amended in 2002 to eliminate the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication. See 

720 ILCS 5/6-3 (West 2004) (containing operative, revised provision stating only that a “person 

who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition is criminally responsible for conduct unless such 

condition is involuntarily produced and deprives him of substantial capacity either to appreciate 

the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”). In light of 

this amendment, it was recognized that “Illinois no longer recognized voluntary intoxication as an 

excuse for criminal conduct.” People v. Jackson, 362 Ill. App. 3d 1196, 1201 (2006). 

¶ 50 This was the legal framework presented to trial counsel during the 2017 jury trial in this 

matter. Nevertheless, on appeal defendant contends that trial counsel should have nevertheless 

introduced evidence of his addiction to PCP in light of this court’s 2018 decision in People v. 

Slabon, 2018 IL App (1st) 150149. In that case, the court held that while voluntary intoxication 

may no longer be available under the statute, “a person's state of voluntary intoxication may be 

relevant in the commission of specific intent crimes *** to negate that specific intent, even if it 

does not provide an affirmative defense against his criminal conduct.” Id. at 33. Thus, defendant 

specifically contends trial counsel should have introduced the medical records to negate the State’s 

evidence of specific intent, and their failure to do so was unreasonable. 

¶ 51 We disagree. As noted above, it was generally understood prior to the decision in Slabon

that “Illinois no longer recognized voluntary intoxication as an excuse for criminal conduct.” 

Jackson, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 1201. We decline to fault trial counsel for failing to raise an alternative 

argument not recognized by this court until the year after defendant’s jury trial. Id. (“It was not 

incompetence to refrain from asserting a defense that the law clearly negated.”).
No. 1-18-0013 

- 15 -

¶ 52 Moreover, even accepting the distinction defendant and the Slabon decision draws between 

raising an unavailable defense of voluntary intoxication and using such evidence to negate the 

State’s evidence of specific intent, an element of the offense, we find that defendant has failed to 

establish actual prejudice. The medical records defendant claims should have been introduced at 

trial indicated that defendant exhibited symptoms of PCP withdrawal more than 12 hours after the 

incident, and after the defendant exhibited calm and cooperative behavior at the police station. The 

assertion that this evidence somehow establishes that defendant was so intoxicated at the time of 

the incident such that he lacked the specific intent to kill is entirely speculative, and as such 

defendant has failed to meet his burden to establish actual prejudice. Supra ¶ 47. 

¶ 53 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 54 For the foregoing reasons, the judgement of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 55 Affirmed.