Opinion ID: 2241943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ineffective Assistance at the Sentencing Hearing

Text: Defendant next claims that Muller was ineffective for failing to prepare and present sufficient mitigation evidence or witnesses at the sentencing hearing. Defendant's sentencing hearing lasted one day and occurred the day after the trial ended. Muller's presentation at the sentencing hearing consisted solely of a short statement on defendant's lack of a serious criminal history. He presented no witnesses or other evidence in mitigation. Defendant asks for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Failure to offer evidence in mitigation does not necessarily demonstrate deficient performance. Orange, 168 Ill.2d at 167-68, 213 Ill.Dec. 589, 659 N.E.2d 935; People v. Perez, 148 Ill.2d 168, 186, 170 Ill. Dec. 304, 592 N.E.2d 984 (1992). Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims concerning a sentencing hearing must show that counsel's performance fell below minimal professional standards and that a reasonable probability exists that the sentence was affected by the poor performance. Orange, 168 Ill.2d at 168, 213 Ill.Dec. 589, 659 N.E.2d 935. Courts are highly deferential of trial counsel's strategic decisions regarding the presentation of mitigation evidence. Orange, 168 Ill.2d at 170, 213 Ill.Dec. 589, 659 N.E.2d 935. Such deference is not warranted, however, where the lack of mitigation evidence results from counsel's failure to properly investigate and prepare a defense. Orange, 168 Ill.2d at 170, 213 Ill.Dec. 589, 659 N.E.2d 935; Steidl, 142 Ill.2d at 249, 154 Ill.Dec. 616, 568 N.E.2d 837. Muller testified in his post-conviction deposition that he did not prepare for the sentencing hearing. He believed that it was highly unlikely that defendant would get the death penalty because he did not have a serious criminal background. Muller was also unaware that the sentencing hearing would immediately follow the trial, and believed instead that he would have one or two weeks to prepare. Muller further testified that he presented no mitigation evidence or witnesses at defendant's request. In an affidavit accompanying defendant's post-conviction petition, however, defendant contends that he never told Muller that he did not want to present evidence and witnesses in mitigation. Rather, defendant asserts that he told Muller only that he did not wish to testify on his own behalf, but that Muller could present other witnesses. Defendant states that he had at least 10 family members present at the sentencing hearing willing to testify on his behalf. Defendant also provides the affidavits of 27 relatives, friends, and neighbors who were willing to testify but were never contacted by Muller. Whether or not defendant had instructed Muller not to present mitigating evidence is not dispositive, for while counsel's decision to follow a capital defendant's instructions not to present mitigating evidence will not necessarily support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ( Orange, 168 Ill.2d at 169, 213 Ill.Dec. 589, 659 N.E.2d 935), a defendant cannot knowingly waive his right to present mitigating evidence without being fully apprised of the nature and extent of the mitigation evidence available ( People v. Madej, 177 Ill.2d 116, 133, 226 Ill.Dec. 453, 462, 685 N.E.2d 908, 917 (1997)). Where defense counsel fails to conduct an investigation that would reveal possible sources of mitigation, a capital defendant cannot make a knowing waiver. Madej, 177 Ill.2d at 133-34, 226 Ill.Dec. at 462-63, 685 N.E.2d at 917-18. Here, Muller's own deposition testimony evidences that he did not conduct a mitigation investigation. Therefore, any decision made by defendant as to the presentation of evidence at the mitigation hearing was not an informed one, and defendant could not have made a knowing waiver of his right to present mitigation evidence. Muller's failure to conduct even a minimal investigation into possible mitigation evidence raises serious questions as to the effectiveness of his legal representation of defendant. The record indicates that Muller's failure to present any evidence in mitigation stems not from strategic considerations, but rather from sheer lack of preparation and a personal belief that defendant would not be sentenced to death. Muller, knowing he had no mitigation evidence prepared, did not object or ask the judge for a time extension when he was surprised to learn that the sentencing hearing would commence the next day. Furthermore, the affidavits of defendant's relatives and friends demonstrate that there were several obvious mitigation witnesses-defendant's mother, brother, and children, for example-who were ready to testify on short notice and could easily have been called. Muller's inaction is similar to other situations where this court determined that a defense counsel's assistance fell below the Strickland standard or at least warranted an evidentiary hearing. See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d 248, 128 Ill.Dec. 1, 533 N.E.2d 1089 (evidentiary hearing ordered where defense counsel waited until after defendant was convicted to prepare for mitigation hearing, then held a group interview with potential witnesses for one hour); Perez, 148 Ill.2d 168, 170 Ill.Dec. 304, 592 N.E.2d 984 (court remanded for a new sentencing hearing where defense counsel failed to make even a minimal investigation into the defendant's background, although he possessed information to do so); Thompkins, 161 Ill.2d 148, 204 Ill. Dec. 147, 641 N.E.2d 371 (court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on counsel's competency where defense counsel failed to contact a number of the defendant's relatives and friends to testify in mitigation). Accordingly, we must consider whether, absent Muller's allegedly deficient performance, there exists a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different. While we observe that several of defendant's 27 affidavits are from persons who were only acquaintances of defendant or had not had substantial contact with defendant in the time directly before the murders, other affidavits are from close family members and friends who swear to defendant's considerate nature and dedication to family. We cannot say that this testimony, coupled with defendant's lack of serious prior criminal history, could not have altered the jury's determination that there was no evidence that mitigated against imposing the death sentence. Based on Muller's lack of preparation at the sentencing hearing and the weight of the missing mitigation evidence, we hold that defendant's post-conviction petition has made a substantial showing that Muller's performance constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred when it denied defendant an evidentiary hearing on Muller's performance at the sentencing hearing.