Opinion ID: 2013856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Moselle Williams

Text: Defendant claims that Moselle Williams, had he been called as a witness at trial, would have testified that he drove Merlinda Entrata to the police station six days after the alleged sexual assault. Defendant argues that Entrata's delay in reporting the alleged assault, and other evidence that the sexual assault case against defendant was weak, negates defendant's motive for murdering Entrata. The issue of counsel's failure to present evidence as to Entrata's delay in reporting the alleged sexual assault is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On retrial, defendant's counsel attempted to elicit testimony from former Assistant State's Attorney Steven Simonian that Entrata did not report the alleged sexual assault until May 4, 1987, six days after its alleged occurrence. The State objected, citing a pretrial ruling which restricted the introduction of evidence relating to the sexual assault case. The trial court sustained the objection. On direct appeal, defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue in a post-trial motion and preserve it for review. Defendant further argued, on direct appeal, that the trial court's exclusion of this evidence was plain error. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 403, 406, 206 Ill.Dec. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856. We rejected both arguments. We held that, assuming arguendo trial counsel was ineffective, the result of the trial would not have been different had counsel preserved this claim. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 407, 206 Ill.Dec. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856. We also held that the exclusion of such evidence was not plain error and did not deprive defendant of a fundamentally fair trial. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 403-04, 206 Ill.Dec. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856. Defendant cannot obtain post-conviction relief merely by rephrasing a claim which was previously addressed on direct appeal. See Evans, 186 Ill.2d at 103, 237 Ill.Dec. 118, 708 N.E.2d 1158; People v. Williams, 186 Ill.2d 55, 62, 237 Ill.Dec. 112, 708 N.E.2d 1152 (1999). Defendant also claims that Williams would have testified that Entrata told him that she could not identify her attacker. In support of this claim, defendant attached to his post-conviction petition a copy of an unsigned, unsworn, untitled report that defendant identifies as investigation notes from Consolidated Investigation Services. An investigation note, dated February 4, 1988, states that contact was made that day with Williams, who stated that Entrata had told him that she was sexually assaulted by a person wearing a mask and gloves and that she could not identify her attacker. A claim that trial counsel failed to investigate and call a witness must be supported by an affidavit from the proposed witness. People v. Johnson, 183 Ill.2d 176, 192, 233 Ill.Dec. 288, 700 N.E.2d 996 (1998); People v. Thompkins, 161 Ill.2d 148, 163, 204 Ill.Dec. 147, 641 N.E.2d 371 (1994). In the absence of such an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine whether the proposed witness could have provided testimony or information favorable to the defendant, and further review of the claim is unnecessary. Johnson, 183 Ill.2d at 192, 233 Ill.Dec. 288, 700 N.E.2d 996; Thompkins, 161 Ill.2d at 163, 204 Ill.Dec. 147, 641 N.E.2d 371. Defendant has failed to support his claim with an appropriate affidavit from Williams. Even if we considered the February 4, 1988, investigation note, in lieu of an affidavit, defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant's trial would have been different had counsel presented Williams' testimony. As this court stated on direct appeal, the evidence overwhelmingly proved defendant's guilt. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 403, 206 Ill.Dec. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856. Williams' proposed testimony would not have impeached or otherwise discredited the testimony of the three prosecution witnesses who identified defendant as the man they observed in the parking lot outside the victim's apartment building on the morning of the murder. Further, whatever identification problems the State might have encountered in its prosecution of defendant for the alleged sexual assault of Entrata, that case was, in fact, set to begin trial on August 17, 1987. Williams' testimony would not have negated defendant's motive for murdering Entrata on August 10, 1987. We therefore reject defendant's claim. We also reject defendant's related claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise, on direct appeal, trial counsel's ineffectiveness for not calling Williams as a witness. As discussed above, the underlying issue has no merit. Accordingly, defendant has suffered no prejudice due to appellate counsel's failure to raise this issue on appeal. See Childress, 191 Ill.2d at 175, 246 Ill.Dec. 352, 730 N.E.2d 32.