Opinion ID: 3134275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to appoint mitigation specialist

Text: Defendant next alleges that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied defendant's motion for appointment of a mitigation specialist. Eighteen months before trial, defendant presented a motion to the court titled Petition For Funds To Be Provided For An Investigator  Which Would Include, But Not Be Limited To Interviews With Potential Witnesses and Character Witnesses For The Defense. The motion sought court appointment of a specific individual to assist defendant regarding potential witnesses and character witnesses for the defense. The judge initially denied the motion. The basis for denial was that the public defender was equipped to perform such interviews and it was defendant's choice to decline such assistance. After the initial denial, the prosecutor suggested to the judge that defendant was seeking more than routine investigative services. The judge asked defendant to elaborate, and he responded that he was seeking character witnesses. The judge asked defendant if he wanted witnesses for the purpose of a sentencing hearing. Defendant answered in the event. The judge then told defendant that she would defer a ruling on the motion. Four months later, before any ruling was made on the motion, the judge took a leave of absence and defendant's case was transferred to the trial judge. After 10 more months of pretrial proceedings, the trial judge attempted to set a trial date and gave defendant a deadline to resolve the issue of any outstanding motions. Before the hearing was held to dispose of the motions, the judge and defendant again discussed contacting witnesses. Defendant continued to object to the services of the public defender in any capacity, including to help him locate and subpoena witnesses. The judge nonetheless explained to defendant that although defendant was representing himself, he could use standby counsel to locate and subpoena witnesses. Defendant did not mention his motion for funds to hire an investigator at that time. Soon thereafter, a hearing was held to dispose of all of defendant's outstanding motions. Defendant did not reintroduce the request for appointment of an investigator or seek a ruling on the previously filed motion. When the trial judge declared that he had disposed of all of the motions, defendant objected. Defendant then mentioned a motion to dismiss, but still did not call the judge's attention to his request for investigative assistance. Between the date of the hearing during which all motions were to be disposed of and the trial date, defendant was allowed to file additional motions. None of the motions, however, revisited the issue of appointment of an investigator. On these facts it is not clear that defendant ever requested a mitigation specialist. Defendant admits that his request for an investigator was broadly written and that he never defined the purpose of his request other than to facilitate investigation of character witnesses. Defendant argues that by naming a particular individual who is a mitigation expert in his written request, defendant properly defined the particular expertise he sought. The written motion seeks to employ the services of David Randall and Associates, Psychosocial and Forensic Consultation [address]. The request does not discuss the functions the expert would perform. The judge queried defendant when he tendered the request but defendant did not expound his reasons for the request. Because defendant failed to explain to the judge why he sought funds to hire the expert, we believe defendant did not sufficiently advise the court that he was requesting assistance to obtain mitigation evidence. Further, defendant has waived his claim. A movant has the responsibility to obtain a ruling from the court on his motion to avoid waiver on appeal. People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989). Although defendant appeared before more than one judge, as his own counsel he was burdened with the responsibility to track the motions and to monitor their disposition, which he did not do. The judge to whom defendant initially tendered his request made it clear on the record that she was reserving a ruling on the motion. Subsequently, when the next judge asked defendant if he had other outstanding motions, defendant failed to preserve this issue when he did not call to the attention of the court his outstanding request for appointment of an investigator. Plain error will also not defeat the waiver. The State presented extensive evidence of a gruesome crime in aggravation. No witnesses testified in mitigation. The State's evidence included expert testimony regarding the extreme pain and suffering of the child victims. For example, the expert witness commented that the pain Leola would have experienced from her vaginal injuries would be one of the worst kinds of pain you could experience. The State also introduced defendant's lengthy criminal record, including his previous convictions for sexual assault and attempted murder. We also believe that defendant's lack of funds for a mitigation expert did not result in an unfair sentencing hearing. The mitigation evidence defendant suggests an expert would have presented is purely speculative. Defendant contends that had an expert been appointed, there were several avenues of potentially fruitful mitigation which could have been pursued. However, the record contains no evidence of what mitigating evidence defendant would have introduced or might have argued. While defendant argues that his lengthy incarceration generally made contacting witnesses difficult, he does not explain his failure to present the testimony of his family members, whom he claimed to have spoken with repeatedly about obtaining a private attorney. Moreover, defendant's allegation that a mitigation witness could have investigated his psychiatric background is questionable. Defendant's decision to reject assistance of the public defender was based on his objection to any portrayal of him as a person with psychiatric problems. We find inconsistent defendant's argument that he would have been willing to have anyone present such evidence if it were available. Accordingly, defendant has not demonstrated that even if a mitigation expert had been appointed, there was a reasonable probability that defendant's sentence would have been different. See People v. Hall, 157 Ill. 2d 324, 340 (1993).