No.2-08- 0590 File d: 6-7-10

_____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 02-- CF--1662 ) MICH AEL C. MO ORE, ) Ho no r ab le ) Stev en G. V ec ch

i o, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CESC HO STO K

de li v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Michael C. Mo o r e a pp ea ls t he t rial co ur t 's o rd er summarily dismissing hi s petiti on fi

le d under t he Po st -Co nvictio n Hea ring Ac t (t he Act) (725 ILCS 5/122--1 et seq. (West2006)), cont endi ng that his trial counsel was i nef fecti ve f or faili ng to o bj ect to the presence of two s ecuri

ty off ic ers positioned behind hi m a t t rial and that hi s a ppe l l atecou

ns el wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or f ai li ng to raise the i ss ueon direct ap pe al. We affir m. I. BACKG ROUND I n 2002, Moor e was ch

arged by in dictment wi

th three counts of fi

rst degree mur de r , wit h co unt I alle gin g t ha t Mo o r e c o mmit t ed mur de rin t he co ur se o f a r es id en ti al b urglary (720 ILCS 5/9--1(a)(3) (Wes t 200 2) ), co unt II alleging t hat he st abbed Elber t Per so n, c aus inghis d ea t h, wh ile kno wing that his

acts created a stro ng probabi li ty of death or gr ea

t bodil y h arm (720 ILCS 5/ 9- -2 (a)(2 ) (W

est 20 02 )), an

d c oun t III al l eg i n g th at h i s a cts crea ted a stron g p rob ab i li

ty of de athNo. 2-- 08--0590

-2-

orgre at b odi

l y ha rm to a p ers on 6 0 y

ea rs of ag e or older (720 ILCS 5/9--1(a)(2) (West 2002); 730 ILCS 5/5--5 --3.2(b)(4)(i

i) (We st 2002 )). In 2005, a j ury tri al

was hel d. Durin g trial , two uniform

ed poli ce off ic ers where posi

tioned direc tl y beh in d Moore. The j ury f

ound Moore guil

ty on al l c ounts, and he m

oved for a new

trial , ar guing in

part t hat the pr esen ce of the officers gave the jury the i mpressi on that Moo re was a se cu ri ty risk. The t rial co ur t denied t he mot ion, obs er ving t hat Mo or e ap pea re d in st re et clot hes, he was not shac kled o r ha ndcu ffed, he was bro ught into t he court roo m b y the off ic ers when

the jury was not pres en

t, and the of f i cers never spoke

to Moore or directed hi

m to do an

y thi ng w hen the j urors were pr es en t. Th e c ou rt further found that the obj ection was un tim el y because i

t was not raised dur ing t r ial. Mo o r e a pp ea led , wit h r ep r es en t at io n by d if feren t coun sel , but did n

ot rais e the i ssue co ncer ning

the presence of

the off ic ers and di

d not alleg e that his t rial

cou ns el wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or faili ng to obj ec t dur

i ng trial to the of ficers' pres ence. W

e af f i rmed. People v . Moore , No. 2--05-- 0450 (2007)(un

pub li shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). In March 2008, Moore file d a pro se po st co nvic t io n p et it io n, alle gin g in pa rt t ha t his trial counsel was ineffect ive for faili

ng t o o bject dur ingtrial

to the presence

of the off ic ers. He alle ged that t he off ic ers were i

n uni form and were pl

aced di re ctly beh in d hi m a nd that there were no other uni formed off

icers i n the court roo m. Moore a lso argued that his appella te counsel was ineffect ive f orf aili ng to rai se th e i ssue of i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of tria l coun sel . Th e t r ial c o ur t su mmar ily dis mi ssed t he pe t it io n, find ing t ha t , as it ap plie d t o t r ial c o un se l, t he iss ue wa s fo r feit ed be ca us e it co uld have been

rais ed on di

rect appeal. The court found that the is sue lacked m

erit as i t applied to appell ate co unsel . Moo re appeals. II. AN AL YSISNo. 2-- 08--0590

-3-

The A ct prov

i de s a re med y to crim in al defen dants who hav

e suf fered s ubstanti al violat ions of their constitut ional

rights. Peo ple v. Ba r cik , 36 5 I l l . A pp . 3d 18 3, 1 90(2 00 6) . W

h en th e dea th pen al ty is not inv olve d, there are three stages to the procee di ngs . Ba r cik , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 190. Dur ingt he firs t st ag e, t he t r ial c o ur t de t er mines wh et he rt he de fen da nt 's a lleg at io ns s uffic ien t ly de mo nst r at e a co nst it ut io na l vio lat io n t ha t wo uld ne ces si tate rel i ef . People v . Colem

an , 183 Ill . 2d 366, 38 0 ( 19 98 ). Th e t ria l co ur t may su mmar ily dismiss t he p et it io n if i t find s t ha t t he pe t it io n is

" fri volousor is pat ent ly witho ut merit ." 725 ILC S 5 /1 22- -2 .1 (a )( 2) (Wes t 200 6) . " [A] pro s e pe ti ti on se ek ing po st co nvic t io n r elie f un de rt he Ac t fo ra d en ial of con sti tuti ona l right s may be su mmar ily

di sm i ss ed asf ri vol ousorpatently

withoutmer it o nly if t he pe t it io n ha s no ar gu ab le b as is ei ther in law or in f

act. " People v . Hodges , 234 Ill . 2d 1, 11-12 (2009). "A petiti on whi ch l acks an ar gu ab le b as is e it he rin

law or in f

act is one which i s based on an i ndi sputably

meri tless l egal theory ora fanciful fact ual allega t ion. " Hodges , 234 Ill . 2d at 16. "We review de no vo the fi rst-stage dism issal of a post conviction pet ition." Ba r cik , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 190.

A. Forfei ture o f In eff ective Ass is

tance of Tri al

Counsel Moore argues that hi s clai

m of in eff ective assistance of tria

l counsel was not forfei

ted, because it de pen de d on

f acts t ha t did not appear on the face of the record, and thus it could n ot have been rais ed on di

rect appeal. In parti cul ar, he argues that t he re co rd did no t sho w t he nat ur e and ext ent o f t he se cu r it y mea su r es t ha t we r e a ct ua lly emp lo yed du r ing t r ial. Pos tcon vi cti on proceedin

gs i nvol ve a rev ie wonly o f matt er s t hat have no t been, an d c o uld not ha ve be en , prev

i ousl y adj udicated. Peop l e v . Eri ck son, 1 83 I ll. 2d 2 13, 222 (1 998 ). Su ch a pe ti ti on i s a col l ate ral atta ck on a prior c on

v i cti on an d s en ten ce , not a substi tut e for or an

addendum to a di rect appe al . People v. West , 1 87 I ll. 2d 4 18, 425 (1 999 ). Acco rd ingly, issues t hat co uld haveNo. 2-- 08--0590

-4-

been rai se d on

di re ct a ppe al , but we

re n ot, are c ons i dered

f orf ei ted an d, th ere f ore, ba rre d f rom consi derati on i n a pos tcon vi cti on procee di ng. Pe o ple v. Bla ir , 215 Ill. 2d 4 27, 443 -44 (20 05) ; Pe o ple v. Mi ll er , 203 Il l . 2d 433 , 437 (2 002). "The f orf ei ture r ul e a pp li es onl y wh ere i t wa s p oss i

b l e to raisean i ssue on direct appeal; thus, a pos tcon vi cti on c l ai m tha t depends on

ma tt ers outside the reco rd is not o rdinari ly forfei ted, because
matters ou t side t he r eco rd may not be rai sed on di rect ap peal ." Peop l e v . You

ng bl ood , 389 Ill . App. 3d 209, 214 (2009). Even when a clai m c ould ha

ve b een raised, however, "i t is wel l e stablis hed that a po st co nvictio n claim will

not be forfe ited where the alle ged forfe iture stems f

rom the i ncom petence of appell ate co unsel ." You

ng bl ood , 389 Ill . App. 3d at 214-15. Here, Moore argues t hat his cl aim could not have been raised on di rect a ppeal because

i t in volv ed matt er s o ut side t he r eco rd , su ch as t he nat ur e and extent of courtro om securi ty. Al though his pe t it io n d id in clu de ad dit io na l de t ails , t he t r ial c o ur t lar ge ly descri bed t he nat ur e and ext ent of t he se cu ri ty when it deni ed the postt rial

motion. In an

y e ven t, because Moore's petiti on rais ed a cla im of ineffect ive assist ance of a ppe llate c ou ns el , the c la im as to t rial

counsel is not forfei

ted. Ac co r din gly, we ad dr es s t he t r ial c o un se l cla im un de rt he rub r ic o f t he ap pe llat e c o un se l cla im. B. Inef fecti ve A ssi stance of A

ppella te Counsel Under Stri

ckl an d v . Washi

ng ton , 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (19 84), a de fen da nt ar gu ing ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l m us t sho w no t only t hat his or her co unse l's performa nce was def ic ie nt butthat the

def endan t suf f ered p rej udice a s a re sul

t. Peo ple v. Hou ston, 226 Ill . 2d 135, 143 (2007). Under the two-pro ng St rick land t est , " a de fendant mus

t show that (1) his counsel's perf

ormance was defi ci ent in that it fel l b el ow an objectiv e standard o f reasonabl

eness, and (2 ) t he de ficient p er for mance p re judiced t he de fendant in that , bu t for co unse l's deficientNo. 2-- 08--0590

-5-

performa nce, there is a

reasonable probabi

li ty that the resul

t o f the proceedi

ng would h

ave b een di f f eren t." Hou ston, 2 26 I ll. 2d a t 144 . " At t he first st age of p os t co nvictio n pr oc eed ings und er t he A ct, a pe t itio n alleging in

eff ective assistancema

y n ot be sum ma ril y di sm is sed if (i ) it i s arguabl

e that counsel's perf

ormance fel l b el ow an obj ective standard of reasonable ness and (i i) i t is arguab le

that the defendant was prejudiced." Hodges , 234 Ill . 2d at 17. A claim of ineffect ive assist ance of a ppe llate c ou nsel is go ver ned byt he sa me rule s t ha t ap ply to clai m s of i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of tria l coun sel . People v. Childress , 191 Il l . 2d 168 , 175 (2 000). The defend ant must sho w t hat app ellate co unse l'sfai lure to raise a

particular is sue on di

rect appeal was obje ctive ly

unreasonable

and that the def

endan t was prejudi

ced by tha t f ai l ure . In orde r to sh ow prejudi ce, t he de fendant must sho w t hat t he unde rlying i ssue had m

eri t. Chi ldress , 191 Ill . 2d at 175. "A defendan t's right to a fai

r tr ial is a f undamen tal li berty i nterest securedby the s ixth and f our tee n th amen dmen ts t o t he Uni

ted S tat es Constitut ion." Pe o ple v. Peeples , 205 Ill . 2d480, 527 (2002 ), ci ting Hol br ook v. Flynn , 475 U.S. 560, 567, 89 L. Ed. 2d 525, 533, 106 S . Ct. 1340, 1345 (1986 ). " 'The pr esu mpt ion o f innocenc e, altho ugh no t ar t iculat ed in t he Con st it ut io n, is a ba sic co mpo nent of a fai

r tr ial under our sys

tem of crim

in al j ustice.' " Pe epl es , 205 Il l . 2 d at 527-28, quo t ing Est elle v. Williams , 425 U.S. 501, 503, 48 L. Ed. 2d 126, 130, 96 S. Ct. 1691 , 1692 ( 1976) . To safeg uar d t hat pr esu mpt ion, " 'co ur t s must be al ert t o factors that may un derm i ne the f ai rnes s of t he fact-fi ndi ng process' and must 'careful ly guard againstdilu t io n o f t he pr inc iple t ha t gu ilt is to be est abl i shed

by pro bative ev

iden ce and bey

ond a reaso nabl

e doubt .' " Peepl es , 205 Ill . 2d at 528, quot in g E st elle , 425 U.S. at 503, 48 L. Ed. 2d at 130, 96 S. Ct. at 1693. "Wh en assess in g the use of v

arious practic es or procedures in the cou rtr oo m, '[c]ourt s must do t he b es t t hey c an t o eva lua t e t he lik ely effe ct s o f a pa rticul ar proce dur

e, b as ed on reason, prin

ci ple ,No. 2-- 08--0590

-6-

and common h

uman experien ce.' " Peepl es , 205 Ill . 2d at 528, quot in g E st elle , 425 U.S. at 504, 48 L. Ed. 2d a

t 130, 96 S . Ct. at 1693 . Howev er, not every

court roo m practice that tends to si ngl e out a de fen da nt fr o m ev er yo ne els e inthe cou rtroom constitutes a vi

olation of a defe ndan t's constitutional ri ghts . Peepl es , 205 Ill . 2d at 528; see Hol br ook , 47 5 U .S. at 5 67 , 89L. Ed. 2d at 5 33 , 10 6 S . C t. at 1345. I n re gard to the

pres ence of

sec uri ty, " 'j urors ar

e qui te awa re that t he de fendant app ear ing bef ore t hem did n ot arriv e there by choi ce or happenst ance.' " Peepl es , 20 5 I ll. 2d a t 528 , q uo t ing Hol br ook , 475 U.S. at 567, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 533-34, 106 S. Ct . at 13 45 . Ju r o r s a lso may r ea so nably dra w a wi deran geof i nf ere nc esf rom the presence of

securi ty personn

el in the cou rtr oo m, because t he pre senc e of

un i f orm ed gua rds i s a com m on cou rtr oom pra

cti ce. Peepl es , 205 Ill . 2d at 530. Furth er, not " 'ev ery rem in der that t he State has chosen to ma rshal its resources aga inst a defend ant to pun i sh hi m f orall egedly crim in al conduct' " can be el

im in ated fro m the proceedings. Peepl es , 205 I ll. 2d at 529, quot in

g Hol br ook , 475 U.S. at 567, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 533 -34, 1 06 S. Ct . at 1345. T hus, the mere pre senc e of

se cu r it y gu ar ds in aco ur t r o o m is no t inhe r en t ly pr eju dic ial and, in view of t he
v ari ety of way s i n wh ic h such guards can be dep loyed, a ca se- by-cas e ap pr oa ch is use d t o d et er mine i f they caus ed pre

j udice. Peepl es , 20 5 I ll. 2d at 530; see Hol br ook , 475 U.S. at 569, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 535, 106 S. Ct . at 1346. I f securi ty meas ures, wh ich ar e s qu ar ely w it hin the dis cretion of the tria

l co ur t , ar e n o t inhe r en t ly

pre j udi ci al , th e def en da nt b ea rs the bu rde n of affirmatively demo nst ra t ing actual prejudi ce. See Peepl es , 205 Ill . 2d at 531; see Hol br ook , 475 U.S. at 572, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 537, 106 S. Ct. at 1347-48. Ge ne r ally, defen

dants who were sub

je cted to in

-court securi

ty m eas ur es sim

il ar to those em ploy ed durin g Moore's trial

have not suff

ered prejudi

ce as a resul

t o f those m

easures. See, e.g. , Peepl es , 205 Ill . 2d at 530 (two uniform ed off ic ers were seated beh

in d the defe ndan t and an off

ic erNo. 2-- 08--0590

-7-

es cort ed him t o t he wit ne ss st an d t o t es t ify, s t o o d b eh indhim w hile h e t es t ified , an d e sc o rt ed him back to the defense t able); People v . Fi elds , 322 Il l . Ap p. 3 d 1029 , 1031, 103 4- 35 ( 200 1) (o ne uniform ed guard was stationed b ehi nd the def ense tabl e, one guard was stationed at each e ntrance to the court roo m, an

d a group of g uar ds w er e se at ed in t he fro nt ro w o f the spec ta to rs' sea ts ); Pe o ple
v. Joh ns on , 54 Ill . App. 3d 970, 972 (1977) (t wo unif ormed of f i cers of the De pa rtm en t of Co rr ect ions were seated beh

in d the defe ndan t t hroughout his trial); People v . Glas co , 66 I ll. App. 2d 445, 448-49 (1966 ) (an

off i cer was p osi

tion ed n ear the def

endan t rather th an i n the sp ectator se cti on). Here, Moore at tempts to distin guis h the ci rcumstances of h

is case, arguin

g that t he r ec o r d is not adequately

devel oped. But, as noted, when t he t r ial c o ur t de nie d h is p o st t r ial mo t io n, it lar ge ly descri bed the n atureand ex

tent of the securi

ty m easures, none of

whi ch we r e a bno rmal o rinhe r en t ly pr eju dic ial. Mo or e's a ddit ional allega t ions do not di sti ngu i sh the f acts of his ca se f rom others w

here prejudi ce wa s n ot sh own . Th us , b ec au se

the pre senc e of

the gua rds wa s n ot inhe r en t ly pr eju dic ial, and Moore di d n

ot al l eg e f ac ts to show

tha t the i r pres en ceres ul ted i n a ctu al pre j udi ce , Moor e di d n ot sh owth at he was pr ejudice d by t rial co unse l's failure t o t imely objec t . As a re sult , t he und er lyi ng is sue had no merit , a nd Mo or e su ffered no p re judice d ue t o his a ppe llate c ou nsel's de cision n ot t o pursue the ma

tt er on appeal . Accordin gly , the trial court correc tly

sum ma r ily dismissed M oo re 's po st co nvictio n pet itio n. III. CONCLUSION The t rial co ur t pr op er ly summ ar ily dismissed M oo re 's po st co nvictio n pet itio n. T he judg ment of the ci rcuit court o f W

in neb ago County i s af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. O' MA LLEY an d BUR KE, J J., con cur.