No. 3–08–0320

______________________________________________________________________________ File d February

11, 2010 IN THE

APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD JUDI CIAL DISTRICT

A.D., 2010
THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of th e 1 0th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, ) Peor ia County, Ill in ois, Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 07-- CF--516 ) JUA N TREN T NESBIT, ) Ho no r ab le ) Michael

E. Bran dt, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE W

RIGHT del

i vered the opi ni on of the court:

______________________________________________________________________________ A jur y fou nd d efe nda nt gu ilty o f t he o ffens es o f ar med hab it ua l cr iminal, unla wfu l us e o f a
wea po n by a felon, and a ggr avat ed u nlawful use of a wea po n on F ebr uar y 7, 2 008 . Fo llowing t he de ni al of de f en da nt’ s m oti on f or new tri al , th e tri

al cou rt se nte nc ed de f en da nt to a 23- yea r ter m of im prisonm ent in the Departmen

t o f Corrections f

or t he off ense of armed h abi tual cri mi nal . On appe al , def

endan t cha l l engesthe s

uf f i ciency of the State’ s ev

i den ce re gardi ng th i s ch arge. Addit ionally, de fendant re que st s a ne w t rial base d o n impro per que st ioning by t he pr os ecu t or and cla ims he r ec eiv ed ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l. FA CTS On Ma y 22, 200 7, a

gra nd j ury f or Pe ori a C oun

ty , Il l i noi s, i ss ue d a f our- cou nt bi l l of in dictment agai

nst def endan t t hat alle ged defe

ndan t commi tt ed the off

ense of armed h abi tual crim in al on May 5, 2007, in that def

endan t knowingl

y posse ssed a f

irearm , bei ng a h andgun , after ha vin g b ee n p r ev io us ly co nvi ct ed o n a t lea st t wo o rmo r e s ep ar at e o cc as io ns o f afo r cib le f elo ny, burglary, i

n vi olation of section 24-1.7(a) of the Cri mi nal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a)2

(W es t 20 06 )) . C o unt II alleg ed de fend ant co mmitt ed t he o ffens e o f unla wfu l po ss es sio n o f a weapon by

a fel on in that defenda

nt knowin

gly possessed a f

irearm at a time when defen dant was on p arol e or m an da tory su pe rvi se d re l ea se

f rom the Il l i noi s D ep artm

en t of Corr ec ti ons aspa rt of hi s s en ten cef or a prior f

el ony con vi cti on i n v i ol ati on of se cti on 2 4-1 .1( a) of

the Cri m i na l Code of 196 1 (7 20 I LC S 5/

24- 1.1 (a) (Wes t 200 6)) . Cou nt I II al l eg ed

de f en da nt c om m i tted th e of f ense of aggravated unl

awful use of a weapon i

n that defen

dant knowi

ngl y posse ssed i

n a m ot or vehicl e an
un ca se d, l oad ed f i rea rm, i m medi ate l y ac ce ss i bl e to d ef en da nt, at a ti me w he n d ef en da nt wasnot
o n his o wn la nd, abo de o r p lac e o f bus ines s, and de fend ant had bee n pr evio us ly co nvict ed o f a fel ony of fen se i n vi olation of section 24-1.6(a)(1) of the Cri mi nal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24- 1. 6( a) ( 1) ( We st 20 06 ) )

. Co un t I V a lleg ed de fen da nt co mmit t ed t he o ffen se o f dr iving wh ile li cense rev oked in violation of

section 6-303(a) of the Il li nois Vehi cl e Code (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (We st 2006 )). On Ju ne 7, 200 7, defend ant po st ed bo nd. In a lett er dat ed J une 2 1, 200 7, defend ant ad vise d t he co ur t t ha t he wa s no w in t he cu st o dy o f t he Pin ck ne yville C o rr ec t io na l Ce nt er in Pinck neyvill

e, Illinois. O n July 3, 200 7, t he t rial co ur t ent er ed a n or der dire ct ing t he cler k o f the
cour t t o forwar d a copy of defendan t’s ex par tecom m un i ca ti on to e ac h of

the attorn ey s of
re co rd . O n Augu st 3, 200 7, defend ant app ear ed in t he cu st od y of t he De par t ment o f Cor re ct ions wi th one of the pub l i c def

enders , and the

tria l court gran

ted def endan t’s re quest for a c onti

nua nc e. On Oc t obe r 2 6, 200 7, defend ant app ear ed be for e t he t rial co ur t in the c ust od y of t he Departmen

t o f Corrections, al

ong with h

is newl y retai ned attor ney . The trial

court entered an orde r al l owi ng the publ i c d ef

en de r’ s of f i ceto wi thd raw an d c onti nu i ng de f en da nt’ s j ury tri al to a date i n F ebruary

of 2 008. On Fe br ua ry 6, 2 008 , th e datethe

j ury tri al com men ce d, def en da nt f i l ed an as si gn men t of
se cu r it y fo rba il wit h t he t r ial c o ur t pr o vid ing de fen da nt as sig ne d t he pr ev io us ly po st ed bo nd in the a m ount of $3,500 to hi s attorne

y of re cord f

or “v al ue rec ei ve d.” On that sa me day , Feb ruary 6, 200 8, t he pa rt ies filed tw o s t ipulat ions o f evidence wit h t he co ur t for t he jur y’s co nsider at ion.3

On e s ti pul ati on provi de d de f

en da nt h ad be en pre vi ous l y con vi cte d on threese pa rate occ as i ons

of the fel ony of fen se of b urglary. The other stipul ation provided that at t he tim e of the al le ged, new off en ses on Ma y 5, 2007 , def

endan t was on parole f or the f elony off en se of retai l thef t. The St at e ca lled Jar vis Har riso n, a n officer wit h t he Pe or ia po lice dep ar t ment, who t es t ified t ha t o n Ma y 5, 20 07 , he r ec eiv ed info rmat io n fr o m dis pa t ch at ap pr o ximat ely 8 :3 0 p

. m. of a do mest ic dispu t e indicat ing t he su spe ct left t he sc ene in a blac k Co rve t t e. The re aft er , t he of f i cer s aw a b l ack C orvette , ra

n th e l i cen se pl ate i n f orm ati on , a n d f oun d th e p l ate “ ca me b ack” to t he sa me “last name o f the individual t hat t he o ffi cer was loo king fo r. ” Ha rr ison r eca lled t hat t he plate ca me b ack to Son

j a Nes bi t. He foll owed t he veh

icl e and activated his

squad car ligh

ts and siren. Harrison als o testifi ed to t he ev

ents i nvol vi ng a polic e chase

of the veh

ic le , drive n by defen dant, which l

asted
sev eral m i nute s. A cc ordi

n g to th e of f i cer, th e b l ack C orvette

ev en tual l y str uc k a h i gh con crete curb and cam e to a stop. Af

ter t he vehi

cl e stopped, he and off

ic er Poynter exi

ted their veh

ic le s and g ave inst ru ct ions t o t he dr iver t o e xit t he ca r w ith his hand s in the air. Har riso n st oo d t o t he right of P oynt er , a ppr oximat ely seven feet fro m the C or vet t e. Des pit e Po ynter ’s dir ect ions t o t he dri ver of th e b l ack C orvette, the dri

ver did not com

pl y . Har riso n st at ed t hat he had his wea po n dr awn a nd also gave co mmands t o t he dr iver. At this tim e, he was able

to observe the dri

ver, but the driv

er did n ot try to get out of the veh ic le . He obs erv ed the dri ve r remai n i n th e veh i cl e a nd rea ch towa rd th e d ri ve r’ s s i def l oorb oard . Ha

rri son descri bed the dri

ver reach in g “b ack and f

ort h wi th hi s han ds.” Ev en tual l y , the d ri v er ex i ted th e v eh i cl e, an d of f i cer Po y n ter h an dcuf f ed de f en da n t. Poy nte r s ea rch ed the bl ac k C orv ettean

d then ad vi se d H arr i son of what had be en f oun d. H arr i son then l ooked insi

de the veh

ic le and observ

ed a han dgun “ [r]ight by

the driv er’s seat.” Ha

rri son st at ed t hat when he loo ked inside t he vehicle, he sa w t he “but t ” o f the gun bu t co uld no t see t he barrel. Ha rrison furt her st ate d t he “butt ” po rt ion was locat ed forw ard o f the front of the d river’s
sea t.4

Rory Poyn

ter, an offi

cer with the Peoria poli

ce departmen

t, t estif ie d he worked on May

5, 2007. On the date, he was as signed to the Peor ia Housin g Authority

and drove a sem

i-m arked sq ua d c ar. A

t approx i mate l y 8 p. m ., he re ce i

ve d i nf orm ati on f rom di sp atc h ask

i ng of f i cers to stop a b l ac k C orv ette . There af ter, he obs erv ed a C orv etteen

ter th e R i ve r Wes t com

m un i ty “ of f of Je f f er son .”W

h en h e ob se rved th e v eh i cl e, h e a l so s aw Of f i cer H ar ri son b eh i n d th e C orvette

wi th “his r ed an d b lue ligh t s o n t rying t o st o p t he ve hic le. ” P o ynt er t he n a ct iva t ed t he ligh t s o n his vehicle and at t empt ed t o s t op t he Co rve t t e, along wit h Officer H ar riso n. P oynt er st at ed t hat t he Corve tte stopped “

behi nd th e 120 0 bl ock of Phoen i x” wh en i t crash ed i nto a cu rb. Af ter t he Corvette crashed, he ex ited hi s veh ic le with h is han dgun drawn. Poy

nter obs er ved t hat t he dr iver o f the Co rve t t e “swu ng his do or op en. ” Po ynter bega n or der ing t he dri ver out of th e v ehi cle. He tol d the sub j ect, “Exi t the vehi cle wi

th y our ha nds up.” H owev er, the subj ect did n

ot compl y. W hen asked wha

t he observed, Poyn

ter stat ed: “Um , I could see the dri

ver – I was off

to hi s l eft si

de, as I stated befo re . T he do or was op en, I c ou ld see t hat he had one hand in t he ai r and hi s righ t hand was n

ot cl early vi si ble to me. The driv

er continue d to reach down towards the fl oor board, at which

tim e I t r an sit io ne d fr o m my han dg un an d a t t emp t ed t o t as e h im, w hic h d id not wor k.” Then, h e observed the s

ubj ect “put hands down

to wards the f

loorboard of the veh

ic le .” He r epe at edly to ld t he su bject t o k eep his hands u p and exit t he vehicle. Po ynter obs er ved t he subj ect place h

is han ds toward t he f

loorboard again, and Poyn ter explai ned that after he a

tt em pted to tase the

sub j ect, the sub j ect put b oth ha

nds toward the

f l oorboard. Poynter indicated t hat Offi cer Harr ison stoo d behi

nd hi m an d that ot her offi

cers also arriv ed at the scene. At thi s poin t, t he sub je ct exi ted the vehi

cl e and “la

id on the ground.” Poy nter i ndi cated th at the d ri ver’sside ai

r ba g ha d dep l oye d. Fur t her , he did no t obs er ve any bru i si ng or b l eedi

ng on def endan t.5

Af ter the s ubj ect wa s handcuf

f ed an d taken i nto custody, h

e se arch ed th e Corvette. Poynter stated “[i]n

pla in view undern

eath the driv

er’s seat f loorboard area I located a silv er 1911 st yle handgu n.” Po ynter explained t hat he wa t ched Lieut enant Adams c lear t he cha mber o f the weap on. Ba sed

on h i s obs ervati ons, th

e wea pon a nd th e m agazi ne were l oaded. Po ynter ident ifi

ed s ever al pho t og ra phs, including a p hot og ra ph o f the vehicle at t he sc ene of the stop, a phot ograph of the han dgun on the f

loor of the veh

ic le as i t was found, and a photograph of

the h andgun on the f l oorboard of

the C orvette b

ut not i n i ts ori gi na l l ocati on. Poynter al so iden

tif ie d defen dant in court as the dri

ver of the b la

ck Corvette. Poynter testif ie d th at h e too k th e h an dg un i n to ev i den ce , a n d P oy n ter i den ti f i ed th e h an dg un i n cou rt. Af ter Poy nter i den tif i ed th e State’ s ex

hi bi ts, the f oll owi ng s eries of

questions an

d answe rs
o cc ur r ed be t we en t he pr o se cu t o ran d P o ynt er , wit ho ut o bje ct io n fr o m de fen se co un se l:

“Q. No w aft er t he hand gun w as r eco ver ed a nd t he defen dant was taken i

nto custo dy, di

d you ha ve occasi on to speak wi th th e def en da n t? A. Y es, s i r. Q. A nd di d y ou a ctu al l y – di d he b as i cal l

y of f er a ny thi ng or
an y i n f orm ati on to y ou a t th at p oi n t? A. Um – Q. D i d he s ay

wh o the ha nd gun be l ong ed to? A. N o, si r, he did not.” Durin g hi s testim

ony, Poy nter agreed that t he .45-cal ib er handgun

appeared to be an older gun and that the shel

ls withi n the m agazi ne could no longe

r be purchas ed. Poynter testif ie d that defen dant’s m ot her, Sonja

Nesbi t, and defen

dant’s wi fe arri ved at the scen

e. Poynter ackn owl edge d tha

t def endan t’s wi f e an d m other pi cked up som e i tem s f rom th e sc ene. Sco t t Bo wer s, a n officer wit h t he Pe or ia po lice dep ar t ment a ssigned t o t he cr ime scene uni t, t estif ie d that on May 5, 2007, he res ponded to t he i

nci dent in question i

n order to retrieve a6

ha ndg un. A f ter retri evi

ng th e handgun, he

proces sed

the h andgun f or any l aten t fi nge rpri nts. Bowers stated that “[t]h

ere w as a partial f i nge rpri nt tha t was on the f ram e of the g un.” Bowers
sa i d th at h e w as n ot abl e to m

ake a deter m i n ati on f rom th e p ri n t. A s a re su l t, he too k th

e g un to the State Pol i ce cri me labi n M orton, Ill i

noi s. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, he clarified t hat he fo und t he pa rt ial print on t he “slide abo ve t he trigge r, that a rea of the gun .” B owers sta

ted tha t he ch ec ke d the she l l s f

or f i ng erpri nts bu t did n ot fi nd an y l atent prints or partial

prin ts. Bowers said that the han dgun was a s

tainl ess steel gun, that the seri al num bers on the gun

had b een def

aced and that def

aci ng ha d occurred some tim

e ago be ca us e t he ar ea ha d r us t ed

. Bo we r s a lso ex pla ine d o n r ed ire ct ex amina t io n t ha t in his
ex peri ence, even though i

tem s are touche d, f

i nge rpri nts m ay not be l ef t beh i nd. The State t hen

calle d Sonja Ne sbi

t t o t estif y. Sh e testif ie d that on May 5, 2007, she liv ed at 1219 Phoenix

and was h

ome that day . Nesbi

t also testif

ie d that on May 5, 2007, the bl ack Cor v ette wa s reg i ste

re d i n h er n am e. She i den ti f i ed de f en da n t as h er son , w h o li v ed on Un i v er si ty wit h his wife, Che ryl, o n t he da t e in que st ion. When ask ed w ho d ro ve t he black Co rve t t e, she sta ted , “ I di d a

n d Ch er y l di d; an d J ua n [d ef en da n t] di d, t oo.”

She state d th

at sh e a n d Ch er y l b oth drov e the veh i cl e on Ma y 4, 2 007 . Ne sb i

t tes ti f i ed tha t sh e k ne w her s on d

rov e the veh

i cl e on May 5, 2007

. Whe n a sk ed wh at she did at t he sc en e o f t he ac cid en t , she st at ed , “I wa s t rying t o ge t all the stuff out of the car bec ause the car ha d al ready b een crash

ed i nto and they

were towing the car
awa y, so I w as t rying t o g et all of my stu ff out of t he ca r. ” Ne sbit c ou ld no t re call anyone spe aking t o he r o r a sking he r q ues t ions. Ho weve r, she a ckno wledg ed t hat so meone might ha ve ask ed he r “if it wa s mine” but co uld no t re call any ot her que st ions. She d enied be ing ask ed w ho typically drove the veh

ic le and wen t o n to stat e, “I don’t recall them aski ng m e any thin g.” Whe n ask ed if she told Of f i cer Poy nter, “ I pay f or it b ut Juan [def endan t] is the on l y one w ho dri ve s i t,” Nes bi t stated, “ No, I didn’ t say

that.” W hen a ske d by

the prosecu

tor how sh

e coul d be so sure ab out h er answ er wh en sh e d i d n ot ev en re ca l l th e c on v er sa ti on wi th th e of f i cer, s h e state d, “

Bu t I7

don’t say he’s the only one that drives

it whe n I dri ve i t and Chery

l dri ves i t.” Nesbi t stat ed that she owned a “ .45” gun on May 5, 2007, and that the gun was l ocated “up un derneath the f

ront seat. ” She stated that she “put i t t here.” Acc ording to Nesbi t, her husba nd o riginally owne d t he gu n. N esbit st at ed t hat she signe d an a ffi davit in May 200 7 st at ing t he ca r be long ed t o he r; t he gu n belong ed t o he r; t he gu n was loca t ed u nder neat h t he se at ; and defend ant did no t kno w t he gu n was in the c ar . T o he r k now ledge , t he affidavit was given t o t he State’s Attorne y off i ce. The St at e t hen r eca lled Officer P oynt er t o t he st and. Po ynter st at ed t hat while at t he
sc ene o f t he a cc ide nt , h e s po ke wit h S o nja N es bit . H e id ent ified h er as t he w o man w ho jus t left the c ourtroom. Poy

nter expl ai ne d tha t he q ues tion ed h er ab out who drove the

bl ack C orvette. The pr os ecu t or t hen as ked , “And did she answ er t hat she p aid fo r it but Jua n is the only o ne who driv es i t.” Po yn ter responded, “Correct .” Poy nte r ac kn owl edge d kn owi ng Ne sb i t on th e datei n q ue sti on i n th at he h ad se en he r on prior occasi ons. He deni

ed ever see in

g Nesbi t drivi ng the b la ck Corvette, and h

e deni ed ever seei ng the b la ck Corvette parked at her resi dence. Poyn

ter stat ed that he saw Nesbit dri vi ng a Mit su bish i Ec lips e ju st da ys p r io rt o t he inc ide nt
. Whe n a sk ed by d efe nse co un se l if Ne sbit t o ld hi m that sh e owned the car, Poynter stated, “Correct. ” Wh en asked i f Nes bi t t old hi m that “Juan
m ost l y dri v es th e c ar ,”Poy

n ter sta ted , “ Ye s, si r.” Ne sb i t also t ol d h

i m th at th e p er son al pr operty i n the v ehi cle b elonge d to her. Poy nter a l so ack nowl edge d tha t he d i scu sse d the

gun wi th Ne sb i t. He could recal

l wh ether Nesbi

t advis ed hi

m that sh e owned the gun or stated t hat she h ad a f i rearm owne rs i den tif i cation ca rd. On redi rect exam in ation, the prosecutor asked “di d Sonja s ay

that Juan m

ostly the [ sic ] dri v es th e c ar or di d sh e s ay

th at J ua n i s th e on l y on e w h at [sic ] drives the car?”

In response, Poy n ter testi f i ed , “ She state d J

ua n i s th e on l y on e th at d ri v es th e c ar .”A

t th at ti me, th e S tate ind ica t ed t ha t it di d n o t ha ve an y o t he rwit ne ss es , an d t he t r ial c o ur t ad jo ur ne d f o rt he da y. On Fe br ua ry 7, 2 008 , th e Sta

te p res en ted an othe r s ti pul ati on to th e j ury. The s ti

pul ati on8

pro vided that if

Lin da Yborr a test if

ied, she would state as follows: “That sh e i s a f irearm s exam in er for the Ill

in ois State Polic e Division o f For ensic S cience ; t hat pur sua nt t o he r d ut ies she examined t he ite ms pac kag ed in P eo ple’s E xhibit No . 4 ; t hat she fo un d t ha t t he fire ar m pa ck ag ed in P eo ple ’s E xhib it No

. 4 w as in f i ri ng c ondi tion .” Af ter t he State presented the stipul ation, the State rest ed. The def ense di d not o ff er any evi dence,
and def endan t chose not to testi f

y . The j ury f ound d ef endan t guil ty of al l pen di ng c ha rges i n the i ndi ctmen t. The tri al court
revoked de f

endan t’s b ond a nd s chedul

ed a h eari ng on posttri al motion s f

or Apri l 18, 200 8. On Febr uar y 12, 200 8, defens e co unse l fi led a mo t ion fo r jud gment of a cqu itt al or in the alte rna t ive for a new t rial. D efense co unse l alleged t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in denying de f en da nt’ s m oti on f or j udg men t of ac qui ttal at the end

of the State ’s ca se an d a t the en d of de fen da nt ’s ca se in c hie f, t ha t t he St at e fa iled t o pr o ve de fen da nt gu ilt y beyo nd a r ea so na ble doubt a nd th at the i ntere sts of

j ustice woul

d be st be serv ed if the tri al court al l owed the m

otion

. On Ma rc h 14, 200 8, defens e co unse l fi led an a mended mot ion fo r jud gment of a cqu itt al or in the al ternative f

or a new trial

whi ch cl ai me d the sam

e errors along wi

th a new al

le gation that the trial court erred

i n de ny i ng d ef endan t’s m otion f or conti nua nc e. On May 2, 2008, t he trial

court deni

ed defe ndan t’s postt rial

motion. Thereaf

ter, t he trial court sen tenc ed de f

endan t on coun t I onl y , arm ed h ab i tual cri m i na l , to a term

of 2 3 y ears im prisonm ent in the Departmen

t o f Corrections. Nei

ther defen

se counsel

nor defen

dant addressed pretrial deten tion credi t toward his se

nten ce. The trial court entered a written order speci fy in g defen dant’s credi

t for the days h

e was subj ect to pretrial

in carceration were f

rom May 6, 2007, until

June 7, 2007, and f

rom Feb ruary 7, 200 8, u nti l Ma y 2, 2 008 . Pu

rs ua nt to th e c ourt’ s orde r, the c l erk

f i l ed a n oti ceof appe al on defen dant’s b ehal

f on M ay 2, 2008.9 AN AL YSIS On appeal, defen

dant rais es three clai

ms of error. First, defen

dant argues the State faile d to prove de f

endan t guil ty b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt of the

off en se of arm ed h ab i tual cri m i na l

. Sec ond , d efenda nt ar gue s t he St at e co mmi t t ed p lain err or when t he pr os ecu t or elicited t est imony
r eg ar din g d efe nd an t ’s po st ar r es t sile nc e. Fina lly, d efe nd an t cla ims d efe nse co un se l inef fec t ive ly fai le d to ma xi mi ze the num

ber of day

s the court credited to ward defen dant’s sen tence f or pret rial det ent ion. The State argues the ev

i den ce e stab l i shed de f

endan t’s gu i l t bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. The St at e su bmits de fendant waived any err or re gar ding p os t ar re st silence. Alter nat ively, the State arg ue s th e p ros ecutor’ s q

ue sti oni ng di d n ot am oun t to plai n e rror jus ti f y i ng rev ers al of defendan t’s conviction. Fi

nal ly , t he Stat e argues the r eco rd is insuf fi cient to esta bli

sh counsel’s i ne f f ecti vene ss. I. Suff ic ie ncy of the Evi

dence Th e j ury f oun d de f en da nt g ui l ty of the of f en se s of arm ed ha bi tua l cri m i na l , un l aw f ul us e of
a w ea po n by a felo n, an d a gg r av at ed un law ful u se o f a w ea po n. Ho we ve r , de fen da nt o nly ch al l en ge s h i s c onv i cti on f or th e of f ense of arm ed ha bi tua l cri m i na l base d on the i ns uf f i ci en cy of the State ’sevi den

ce. W he n r ev i ew i ng a c ha l l en geto the su f f i ci en cy of the ev i de nc e, th e a ppr opri atesta nd ard of review i s whether v

ie win g the evi dence i n the l igh t most favorabl

e to t he prosecution, an

y rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el em ents of the off

ense we re proven bey

ond a
reas onab l e doubt. People v. Pollock , 202 Ill . 2d 189, 217 (2002), ci ting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S . 30 7, 3 18- 19, 61 L. Ed. 2d 5 60, 573 , 99 S. Ct . 27 81, 278 8-8 9, ( 197 9); People v. Collins , 106 Ill . 2d 237, 261 (1985). “The s am e standard of rev

ie w applie s when

reviewi ng the suf fi ci ency of evi dence i n al l c rim in al cases, regardless of wh

ether the evi

dence is di

rect or ci rcumstantial .” People v. Pollock

, 2 02 I ll. 2d a t 217 . C ircu msta nt ial evidence alone is sufficient t o s ust ain a
co nvic t io n w he r e it sa t isfie s p r o o f be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t o f t he ele men t s o f t he cr ime10

charged

. People v. Pollock, 202 Ill . 2d at 217. Decisions regardin g the credibil

ity of wi tnesses
and the wei ght gi ven to thei

r testi mony are exc l usi ve l y wi thi n the provi

nc e of the j ury . People v. Collins , 106 Il

l . 2d at 26 1-62. A defen dant’s crim

in al convi ction wil l b e reversed only

where the evidence i

s so
unr eas onab l e, i

m proba bl e, or un sati sf

actory that i t ju sti f i es a reas onab l e doubt of de f

endan t's g uil t. People v. Wheeler

, 226 Ill . 2d 92, 115 (2007), ci ting People v. Smith, 185 Il l . 2d 532 , 542 (1 999); People v. Pollock

, 20 2 Ill. 2d at 217 ; People v. Collins , 106 Il l . 2d at 26 1. A

revi ewi ng c ourt shoul d not retry

a def endan t when c onsi

deri ng a suf f i ciency of the ev i den ce cha l l enge. People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill . 2d at 114. The Cri mi nal Code of 1961 provides

that a person comm

its the off ense of bei ng an armed hab itual crim in al when that person “recei

ves, sel ls , possesses, or tr ansf

ers any fi rearm” af ter prev i ousl y ha vi ng b een conv i cted f or two or more f

orci bl e f elony off en ses i den tif i ed b y statute. 720 ILC S 5 /2 4- 1. 7 ( West 200 6) . At t rial, d efenda nt st ipulat ed t hat he had t hre e se par at e felony convi ctions f or t he off ense of burglary, a f

orcibl e fel ony. F urther, defenda

nt concedes on appeal t hat he dr ove a mot or vehicle which c ont ained a handg un. Ho weve r, defend ant co nt ends t hat t he St at e failed t o p ro ve t hat he kno wingly po sses sed t he hand gun t hat t he po lice disco ver ed in t he
m otor vehi cle he adm

i tted dri vi ng. Crim in al possession ma

y b e actual or constructive. W here the possess ion i

s constructive, the Stat e m

ust prove that “defen

dant (1) had knowledge of the presen ce of the weapon, an

d (2) had i mm edi ate and excl

usi ve control over the area wh ere the weapon was f

ound.” People v. Ingram , 389 Ill . App. 3d 897, 899-900 (2009), citing People v. Hampton, 358 Ill . App. 3d 1029, 103 1 (2 005 ); People v. Stack, 244 Il l . Ap p. 3d 39 3, 398 ( 1993)

. Ho we ve r , t he St at e c an no t r ely o n a n infe r en ce o f kn o wle dg e fr o m de fen da nt 's p r es en ce in a mot or vehicle whe re a we apo n is found . T he St at e must pr ese nt ot her evidenc e es t ablishing def endan t’s kn owl edge of the wea

pon. People v. Ingram , 38 9 Ill. App. 3d at 900 ; People v. Hampton, 358 Ill . App. 3d at 1033. Knowledge ma y b e “i nf erred from s everal

factors, in

cl udin g:11

( 1) t he visib ilit y o f t he we ap o n fr o m de fen da nt 's lo ca t io n in t he ve hic le, ( 2) t he amo un t o f t ime in which de fendant had a n op po rt unit y to obs er ve t he we apo n, ( 3) ges t ur es o r mo vement s made by defend ant t hat wo uld su gge st an effo rt t o r et rieve o r c onc eal t he we apo n, a nd ( 4) t he size o f the weapon.” People v. Ingram , 389 Ill . App. 3d at 900, citin g People v. Hampton, 358 Ill . App. 3d at 103 3; People v. Bailey, 333 Il l . Ap p. 3d 88 8, 891- 92 (20 02). I n t his c as e, t he St at e p r es en t ed t es t imo ny fr o m t he o ffice r s w ho ap pr o ac he d t he ve hic le after the bl

ack Corvette sto pped. Poynter and Harri son gave di rections to the driver of

the bl ack Corvette, but the driv

er did n ot compl y. The n, Harris on observed def

endan t, who remai

ned seated beh

in d the wheel, reach toward t he dri ver’s s ide fl oor board. Harrison desc

rib ed the driv

er reachi ng “ back an d forth wi th hi s han ds.” An ot her off ic er, Poynter, observed that the driv er of the Corvette “swung h is door open.” Po ynt er als o be ga n o r de r ing t he dr ive ro ut o f t he ve hic le. He t o ld t he su bje ct , “E xit t he ve hic le wi th y our h an dsup. ” Si

m i l arl y , de f en da nt i gn ored the di recti ve s of the of f i cer an d di d n ot compl y. W hen asked wha

t he observed, Poyn

ter stat ed: “Um , I could see the dri

ver – I was off

to hi s l eft si

de, as I stated befo re . T he do or was op en, I c ou ld see t hat he had one hand in t he ai r and hi s righ t hand was n

ot cl early vi si ble to me. The driv

er continue d to reach down towards the fl oor board, at which

tim e I t r an sit io ne d fr o m my han dg un an d a t t emp t ed t o t as e h im, w hic h d id not wor k.” Then, h e observed the s

ubj ect “put [has] han

ds down towards t he f

loorboard of the veh

ic le .” Po ynter saw t he su bject place his hands t ow ar d t he floo rbo ar d ag ain. P oynt er st at ed t hat when he
o bse rve d d efe nd an t r ea ch t o wa r d t he flo o r bo ar d, de fen da nt wo uld ha ve be en r ea ch ing in t he sa me l ocati on as

the h andgun

. When sea rc hing t he vehicle, bot h Har riso n and P oynt er obs er ved a handg un o n t he driv er’s si de fl oor board. The jury

recei ved ph ot ographic e

vi dence depi

cting a standard si

ze12

handg un lo cat ed w ith t he hand le or “but t ” o f the gun visible and pr ot ru ding fro m beneat h t he dr iver’s sea t of t he Co rve t t e. Acco rd ing t o t he o ffi cer ’s t est imony, t he o ffi

cer s loc at ed t he handg un in t he immediate ar ea be low d efenda nt ’s se at . H ar riso n des cr ibed t he hand gun a s being located “[r]ight by

the driv er’s seat.” He f

urther stat ed that the “butt” of the gun was l ocated forward of the f

ront o f the s eat. Po yn

ter stat ed “[i]n plai

n vi ew undern

eath the driv

er’s seat f l oorboard a

rea I l ocated a si l ver 1911 sty

l e handgun .” Poy

nter tes tif i ed th e gun

wasl oaded. The off i cers testi f i ed de f endan t was the sol

e occu pan t and dri ver of th e b l ack C orvette. The offi cer’s test im

ony provided the jury

with di rect e vidence of defen

dant bein g located in close proxim ity to the weapon and ci

rcumstantial

evi dence of defen dant arguabl

y a tt em pting to retrieve, conceal , or discard the weapon as of fi cers were i

n pursui t and la ter appro ached the sto pped
vehi cle. On t he o t her hand, t he de fense o ffered circu msta nt ial evidence t hat defend ant did no t have knowle dge the Corvette co ntain ed a loaded weapon. Sonja Nesbit, def endan t’s mother, testif

ie d she o wned t he . 45- caliber g un lo cat ed in t he vehicle. She info rmed t he jur y that she o wned t he
car a nd p l ace d the

gun und erneath the f ront se at of the v ehi cle. Fu rther, s he adv i sed the j urors that de f endan t di d not kn

ow the g un was i n the ca r. The jury wa s re quir ed t o r eso lve the que st ion o f fact re gar ding d efenda nt ’s kno wledg e and po sses sion o f the wea po n. V iewing t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion,
wecon cl ude a ra ti ona l tri er of f ac t coul d f

i nd de f en da nt h ad ac tua l kn owl edgeof the pre senc e of the l oad ed we ap on a

nd ei the r con stru cti ve l y or actua l l y pos se ss ed

the gun on th e day i n q ue sti on based on the c ircum

stances desc

rib ed by the off ic ers. Accordin

gly , we concl

ude the State pro ved de fen da nt gu ilt y beyo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t o f t he o ffen se o f ar med ha bit ua l cr iminal.

II. Pro secutor’s Questions Rega rdin g Defe ndan t’s PostArrest S il

ence Next, defen

dant argues the prosecutor im properly elic ited testim

ony regardi

ng defendan t’s po starr est silence warranting a new trial in this case. The Stat e subm its defend ant wai ved an y prosecutorial

error r egardin

g post arrest sil

ence and, alternativel

y, asserts t he13

pro secut or ’s quest ions at issue did not amount t o plain erro r justify ing reversal of defendant’s
conv i cti on. It is undi sputed that during the State’s case i n ch ie f, thi s exch

ange occurred between the pr ose cu tor a n d of f i cer Po y n ter of th e P eor i a p oli ce de pa rtm en t: “Q. No w aft er t he hand gun w as r eco ver ed a nd t he defen dant was taken i

nto custo dy, di

d you ha ve occasi on to speak wi th th e def en da n t? A. Y es, s i r. Q. A nd di d y ou a ctu al l y – di d he b as i cal l

y of f er a ny thi ng or
an y i n f orm ati on to y ou a t th at p oi n t? A. Um – Q. D i d he s ay

wh o the ha nd gun be l ong ed to? A. N o, si r, he did not.” Defens e counsel did not object to this l in e of questioning duri

ng trial. Addi

tionall y, def ense
coun sel did not i nc l ude th i s i ssue i n de f endan t’s posttrial

motion

. As a g ener al ru le, a defend ant ’s failure t o o bject at t rial o r r aise t he issue in a wr itt en, posttri al motion resu l ts i n w ai ver of th at i ssue on a

ppea l

. People v. Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d 176, 186 (1988 ). An

ex cepti on to the w ai

ver rule ex

i sts i n c ase s of plai n error. People v. Enoch , 12 2 I ll. 2d at 19 0-91. The first st ep in co nsider ing plain er ro r is t o d et er mine whet her an er ro r o ccu rr ed. An
un pre serv ed err or wi l l not b e n oti ce d un de r Ru l e 6 15( a) ( 134

Il l . 2d R. 6 15( a)) un

l es s i t i s c l ea r or obv i ous. People

v. Piatko w

ski, 225 Ill . 2d 551, 565 n.2 (2007), citin g United States v. Olano, 507 U .S. 725, 7 34, 123 L. Ed. 2 d 508, 5 19, 113 S. Ct. 1770 , 1777 ( 1993)

. If such an error occurred, a reviewi ng court wil

l gran t reli ef i n ei ther of two circu msta nces : ( 1) if the e vidence is so clos ely balanced t hat t he er ro r a lone t hre at ened t o t ip t he scales of j ustice or (2) if

the error is so seri ous that it aff ected the fai

rness of a defe ndan t's trial14

and ch al l enged the i

nteg ri ty of the j udicial

proces s, reg ardl

ess of the cl osen ess of the ev i den ce. People v. Piatko w

ski, 22 5 I ll.2 d a t 56 5. A d efe nd an t be ar s t he bu r de n o n bo t h t he t hr es ho ld que st ion o f plain err or and t he qu est ion whe t her he is ent itled t o r elief as a r esu lt o f the unprese rve d error. People

v. Piatko w

ski, 225 Ill .2d at 565, citing People v. Herron, 215 Ill . 2d 167, 18 6-87 (2 005). The Unit ed S t at es S upr eme Co ur t in Doyle v . Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 49 L . Ed. 2d 91, 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976), hel

d the Stat e’s use of

a defe ndan t’s sile nce, at the tim

e of arrest and af

ter
re ceiving Mira nda w ar nings, for impeachment pur po ses vio late d t he Du e Pr oc ess C lause of t he f ourteen th am endm en t. Doyle v

. Ohio , 426 U .S. at 619, 4 9 L. Ed . 2d at 98 , 96 S. C t. At 2245

. Subsequen

t t o t he Un

ited States Supreme Court ruli ngs, our supreme c ourt ruled that “[ p] r o se cu t o r ial q ue st io ns a nd r ema rks co nc er ning a d efe nd an t 's p o st
- ar r es t sile nc e a r e g en er ally impro per [c itat ion] wit h exce pt ion being mad e fo r impea ching t he de fendant 's t est imony with a prior i nconsistent stat em

ent.” People v. Pegram , 124 Ill . 2d 166, 176 (1988), ci ting Doyle v. Ohio , 4 26 U .S . 6 10, 49 L . E d. 2d 9 1, 96 S . C t . 2 240 (1 976 ). Fur t her , I lli nois c ou rt s have consistent ly

ruled t hat t he St ate is prohibi ted from quest ionin

g or commenting on a defendant’s postarres t sil ence wi

thout ref eren ce to whethe

r the s i l ence occ

urred b ef ore or af ter Miranda
warn i ngs unl ess the q ues tion i ng i s us ed to i m peac h de f endan t’s testim ony . People v. Strong , 215 Ill . App. 3d 484, 488 (1991); See People v. Pegram, 124 Ill. 2d a t 1 75- 76; People v. Turner , 128 Ill. 2d 5 40, 563 -64 (19 89) ; People v. Johnson , 17 0 Ill. App. 3d 8 28, 834 (19 88) ; People v. Nolan , 152 Ill. App. 3d 2 60, 267 -68 (19 87) ; People v. McMullin , 138 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 87 2, 876- 77 (19 85). Gi ve n th at def en da nt d i d n ot tes ti f y i n th i s c as e, th e q ue sti ons by the pros ecutor w ere

not offer ed fo r p ur po ses o f im pea chment . Mo re ove r, t he pr os ecu t or ’s inquir y im pr op er ly f oc use d t he jury o n defend ant ’s silence a nd at t empt ed t o imply kno wledg e o f the handg un bec aus e de fendant did n ot off er any assertion to the police deny in g or assign

in g ownershi

p of the han

dgun to another pers on. Accordi

ngl y , the prosecu

tor’s questi

oni ng was i m proper. Ha ving de t er mined t hat an e rr o r o cc ur re d, t his c o ur t mus t nex t ap ply t he fir st pr o ng o f a15

plain er ro r a nalysis to det er mine whet her t he evide nce w as so clos ely balanced in this ca se t hat t he error al one th reaten ed to tip the s cal es of j ustice. People

v. Piatko w

ski, 225 Il l .2d at 56 5. It is true tha t def endan t di d not ad

m i t to any knowl edge

of the handgun

i n the v ehi cle. Fur t her mor e, defend ant ’s mot her , S onia N esbit , t est ifi ed t hat she o wned t he hand gun, ow ned t he veh ic le in whi ch the h andgun was f ound and pl

aced the loaded handgun

in the veh ic le without def endan t’s kn owl edge . Howev

er, disputed

f acts d o not mean

the evi den ce was cl osel y ba l anced. It was undi sputed defen

dant was the sol e occupant of a sm all c ar, a Corvett e. The gun was loaded . The g un was visi ble to t he police offi

cers o nce the ca r st opp ed. T he defendant’s ges t ur es a nd mo vement s we re co nsist ent wit h an at t empt t o c onc eal o r r et rieve t he we apo n. T he j ur y wa s f re e to rej ec t th e te sti

mon y of Son j a N es b i t, d ef en da n t’s moth er , b as ed

up on cred i b i l i ty issues . Ac co rd ingly, we d o no t find the evidenc e clo sely balanced , a nd we do not find the pros ecutor’ s d

i rect exam i na ti on r eg ard i ng de f en da nt’ s p osta rre st s i l en cewa rra nts a re ve rs al of defend ant ’s co nvictio n. Ne xt, weconsi

de r th e s ec ond

pron g of pl ai n e rror. Th e s ec ond

pron g of the pl ai n e rror rule appl ie s i f “ the error is so fun

dam ental to the in tegrity of the judi ci al process and so prej udic ia l to the defe

ndan t t hat the trial

court could n

ot cure the err

or by su stai ni ng an obj ec ti on or in structing the j ury to disregard the error. ” People v. Herr ett , 1 37 I ll. 2d 1 95, 215 (1 990 ), citing People v. Carlson , 79 Il

l . 2d 564 , 577 (1 980). Our supreme

court has h

el d that “a comm

ent upon a defendan

t's post- ar re st sile nc e, wh ile impro per , is no t an error o f s uch m agni tude as to cl early

depriv e the def endan t o f a f ai r trial .” People v. Herr ett , 137 Ill . 2d at 215, citing People v. Ste w art , 10 4 Ill. 2d 463 , 48 8 (1 984 ); People v. Lucas , 88 Il

l . 2d 245 , 252 (1 981). F

urthe r, the prosecu

tor’s i nqu i ry i n th i s ca se w as l

i m i ted. The pr osec ut ion did not a rgue that defendant’s fail ure t o de ny ownership or pr oclaim his m ot her’s
own er sh i p i n terest i n th e g un sh oul d b e c on si dere d b y th e j ur y . Th eref ore , w e c an

n ot ag re e wi th de f en da nt’ s a ss erti

on th at th e p ros ecutor’ s i

m prop er b ut l i m i ted que sti oni ng wa rra nts a re ve rs al of def endan t’s c onv i cti on i n th i s ca se.16 III. Ineff ective Ass is

tance of Counse l Fi n al l y , de f en da n t cl ai m s th e pub l i c def

en der, rath er th an pri v ate cou n se l , f ai l ed to
ma xi mi ze the num

ber of day

s the court credited defen dant toward his sen

tence f or pret rial det ent ion. Defend ant claims tha t t he pu blic defende r w as ineffect ive for faili ng t o r equ est t he
co ur t t o a llow d efenda nt t o s ur re nder t he bo nd po st ed in t his case , o nce t ake n into cus t od y by the Depa rtme nt of Correcti ons f or a parol e vi ola tion ba sed on thi s i nc i den t. It is well est ablished t hat a claim of ineffect ive assist ance has t wo co mpo nent s. T he Uni ted St ates Supreme Court has stated:

“Fi rst, t he def

endan t must show that counsel 's perf ormance was defi ci ent. This

requires s

howin g that counsel m

ade errors so serious t hat co unse l was no t funct ioning as t he ‘co unse l’ gua ra nt eed t he defendan t by the Six

th Amen dmen t. Second, t he defen

dant must sho w t ha t t he de ficie nt pe r fo rman ce pr eju dic ed t he de fen se . T his
re quir es sho wing t hat co unse l's err or s we re so ser iou s as t o d epr ive the defendant of a fai

r tr ial, a t rial

whose result is reli

able. Unless a defend ant makes bot h sho wings, it ca nnot be sa id t hat t he
co nvictio n or dea t h sent ence re sult ed fr om a br eak do wn in t he adversary process that renders the resul t unreli abl e.” Strickland v. Washington , 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 6 87 , 80 L. Ed. 2d

67 4,6 93 , 10 4 S . C t. 2052, 2 064 (1 984). From the record, it i s clear that defen dant posted bail

in the am ount o f $3,500 an

d was
re leased fro m the c ust od y of t he Pe or ia Co unt y jail on J une 7 , 2 007 . I t is also clear fro m the record that on Ju

l y 3, 2007 , the c ourt recei

ve d a l etter f rom d ef endan t dated J une 21, 200 7. In t his lett er , d efenda nt advise d t he co ur t t hat he wa s no w in t he cu st od y of t he I lli nois D epa rt ment of Corrections at the Pin

ckney vi ll e Correctional

Center l ocated in Pi

nckn ey vi ll e, Ill in ois. On that
sam e day , Jul y 3, 2007 , the tri

al court en tered a n orde r di recti ng th e cl erk of the c ourt to forward17

a copy of defen

dant’s ex par

tecom m uni cation to each

of the attorney

s of record. It w oul d b e i m pr oper to f

i n d a pp oi n ted cou n se l to b e i n ef f ec ti v e on a date before appoi nted coun sel rece i ve d notice of

his cl i en t’s i nc arce rati on f or a vi ola tion of h i s m andatory
su pe rvi se d re l ea se . W

hi l e the c ourt d

i rected the cl erk to f orwa rd def en da nt’ s l ette r to cou

ns el on July 3, 2007, we cannot det ermi ne when appoin

ted co unsel

received the lett er or had the fi rst op po rt unit y to discu ss a p ot ent ial decisio n t o s ur re nder bond wit h his client. It is clear fro m the
re co rd t hat on Au gus t 3, 200 7, defend ant app ear ed t og et her wit h his app oint ed c ou nsel befo re t he ci rcuit court in Peoria w

hi le he was i n the custody of

the Departmen

t o f Corrections. Thi

s m ay h av e b een cou n se l ’s f i rs t opp ortu

n i ty to disc us s th e m atte r w i th h i s c l i en t. On October 26, 2007, the court allowed the pub li c defe nder to withdraw. On that date, de fen da nt ap pe ar ed be fo r e t he t r ial c o ur t in t he cu st o dy o f t he De pa r t men t o f Co rr ec t io ns w it h his newl y retai ned attor ney . Sim

il arly , priva te counsel di

d not request t he b ai l m

oney to be rel eased on t hat dat e so t hat defend ant co uld su rr ende r himself into t he cu st od y of t he co unt y and maximi ze his p re t rial de t ent ion cr edit . Ap par ent ly, defend ant co nt inued t o be hou sed in the Departmen

t o f Corrections un

til the date of trial . On Feb ruary 6, 2008, the date the jury trial
co mmenced, defend ant fil ed a n assignment of se cur ity for bail with t he t rial co ur t pr ovid ing def endan t assi gne d the prev i ousl y posted b ond i

n the am ount of $3,500 to hi s attorne

y of re cord f or “v al ue rec ei ve d.” The record is al

so sil ent as to whether appointed counsel or private counsel

dis cussed
sur re nder ing t he bo nd wit h defend ant . P er haps , d efenda nt pr efer re d t o r emain in the D epa rt ment of Co rr ect ions r at her t han t he co unt y jail for re aso ns unk now n. I t is also plaus ible that defend ant
and counsel

di scu sse d tha

t, wi thout a su rren der, the posted

f unds woul

d be av ail ab l e i

n the f uture f or ass i gnm

en t to priv ate counsel

f or le gal serv i ces rendered

. Based upon the record provided on appe al , there are sim ply to o man y un answered que st ions. Defend ant bear s t he bur den o f pro viding a r eco rd sufficient for t his co ur t t o d ecide t he i ssues b ef ore us. People v. Jenkins , 383 Ill . App. 3d 978, 989 (2008), citin g Foutch v. O’Bryant ,99 I ll. 2d 3 89, 391 -9 2 ( 198 4) . B ase d o n t his rec or d, we a re unable t o r eso lve the ineffect ive

assist ance of c ou nsel claim witho ut so me deg re e o f spec ulat ion. Defend ant ’s claim wo uld bes t be pres en ted asa postcon

vi cti on m atter where a

n adequate rec ord can

be developed. CONCLUSION The j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court o f Peori a County is af fi rmed. Af fi rmed. SCHMIDT, J., co ncurs. JU STI CEO’ BR

IEN , c on cu

rri n g i n pa rt a n d di ss en ti n g i n pa rt: I re sp ec tf ul l y di ss en t f rom the maj ori ty ’s hol di ng tha t i t wa s n ot i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of counsel when Nesbi t’s atto rney

fai le d to surrender hi

s bond i n order to obtain pres entence in carceration credi

t for hi m i n the event he was f

ound guil ty f oll owing tri al

or even if h

e had ul tim atel y deci ded to en ter a pl ea of gui l ty. The right t o r ece ive pr ese nt ence incarc er at ion cr edit is aut omat ic pr ovid ed t hat t he def endan t surren ders his b ond. People

v. Hatche tt , 203 Ill . App. 3d 989, 991, 560 N.E. 2d 1347, 13 48 ( 19 90 ) ( t r ial c o ur t er r ed in d en ying wit ho ut r ea so n d efe nd an t ’s mo t io n t o wit hd r aw his bon d). Had his atto rney

surrendered hi

s bond, Nesb it would h

ave b een i n si mul taneous custody
and rece i ve d cred i t for th e ti me af ter his re-a

rrest. People

v. Arnhold

, 115 Ill . 2d 379, 383, 504 N. E. 2d 1 00, 101 (1 987 ) ( defend ant who is ou t on bo nd and ar re st ed a nd r et ur ned t o c ust od y on a sepa rat e char ge is not ret urne d t o c ust od y on t he ini tial charg e unt il

his bond is revo ked) ; People v. Robinson , 17 2 Il

l . 2d 452 , 45 9, 6 67 N .E.2 d 13 05, 130 8 (1 996 ) (def en da nt e nti tl ed to cre di t f or tim e i n s i m ul tane ous cu stody

on di f f eren t cha rges ). The a ttorn ey f or th e def en da n t h as th e res ponsi b i l i ty f or z ea l ous l y repr es en ti n g h i s c l i en t, whi ch i ncl udes procedural, tactical, and techni cal aspects of a def

endan t’s defen se. Wh il e i t may have been an oversi ght on the part o f def

ense couns el

in the in stant case, the oversight was pro cedur al i

n natur e and caused Nesbit a furt her loss o f l iberty occasioned by h

is att or ney’s mist ak e. I n my o pin io n, su ch a fa ilur e t o ac t o n be ha lf o f t he de fen da nt , wh en t o do so wo uld ha ve rea pe d a n a utom ati c b en ef i t, wa s i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of cou ns el pur suan t to Strickland

.19

I fur t her believe t he pr op er re medy is to re mand t his matt er t o t he t rial co ur t t o d et er mine t he pr op er number of c re dit days t o w hich Nes bit is ent itled . I believe und er t he inst ant fact s, t he
r ec o r d is su fficie nt t o su pp o r t Ne sbit ’s cla im o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce ; t he o nly iss ue un r es o lve d is the n um be r of d ays f or whi ch Nes bi t shoul d rece i ve credi t for pre -sen

tenc e i nc arce rati on. People v. DuPree , 3 53 I ll. App. 3d 1 037 , 1 049 , 8 20 N .E .2 d 56 0, 570 (2 004 ) ( cau se r emande d t o a mend the mi tt im us to reflect additional

in -custody credi

t where defe

nse couns el

fai le d to surrender defen dant’s b ond after his re-arrest). On reman d, Nesbi t should b e gi

ven credit f or t he addi

tional tim e he sp en t in cus tody a

f ter his re-a

rrest. I conc ur i n the m aj ority opi ni on i n a l l other re spe cts.