Opinion ID: 3134622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretrial Errors

Text: Defendant maintains that his counsel was ineffective in presenting his motion to suppress a statement that defendant gave at police headquarters on the night of March 17, 1987, in which he confessed to the murder of Lisa Ferguson. Defendant contends that his counsel failed to introduce corroborating testimony relating to the claim that his confession was coerced. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress defendant’s statement, arguing that it was coerced. In support of this motion, defense counsel offered testimony from Josephine Palomino, defendant’s girlfriend. She stated: “I heard David Smith [at the police station]. He was yelling, screaming. He was swearing, telling the police officers–well, I would take it for granted it was the police officers–to leave him alone, not to touch him, to get away from him, and he was calling for me. I want to talk to Josie. I want to talk to Josie. I want to see Josie.” In denying the motion, the trial judge stated: “There is absolutely no evidence indicating that there was any physical abuse in this case, and I think that the pictures [of defendant] bear this out, that there was no physical abuse seen in those photographs.  Assuming arguendo that there were loud voices raised  the Petitioner does not by this type of testimony meet his burden indicating that  the statement was not freely and voluntarily given. Where a defendant has made a statement and later has had an opportunity to reflect on that statement and consult with his advisors, be they attorneys or other people he comes into contact with, he shortly realizes that his mere denial is not going to be enough. He must show something else. Well, I don’t think that there is any evidence in this case that the statement was other than free and voluntary.” Defendant now argues that the trial judge’s decision would have been different had defense counsel offered additional evidence from Rose Palomino, Josephine Palomino’s mother. At trial, Rose Palomino testified: “I heard [defendant] yelling for Josie, calling her name, let me see Josie, let me see Josie, and he said, get your ‘F’ing hands off of me.” This argument is waived. Rose Palomino’s testimony was part of the record on direct appeal. Accordingly, this claim could have been raised at that time. See Towns , 182 Ill. 2d at 502-03 (issues that could have been presented on direct appeal but were not, are waived). However, defendant contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal. Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are measured against the same standard as those dealing with ineffective assistance of trial counsel. West , 187 Ill. 2d at 435. “A defendant who contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance, e.g. , by failing to argue an issue, must show that the failure to raise that issue was objectively unreasonable and that the decision prejudiced the defendant. Appellate counsel is not obligated to brief every conceivable issue on appeal, and it is not incompetence of counsel to refrain from raising issues which, in his or her judgment, are without merit, unless counsel’s appraisal of the merits is patently wrong. Accordingly, unless the underlying issues are meritorious, defendant has suffered no prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise them on appeal. People v. Childress , 191 Ill. 2d 168, 175 (2000); People v. West , 187 Ill. 2d 418, 435 (1999) (and cases cited therein).” People v. Easley , 192 Ill. 2d 307, 328-29 (2000). In examining the claim on the merits, however, we find that defendant’s argument fails. The trial judge was clear in his finding that, even assuming that there were “loud voices raised,” such evidence did not satisfy defendant’s burden of proof to show that his statement was not freely and voluntarily given. Rose Palomino’s testimony does not significantly differ from Josephine Palomino’s testimony and is merely cumulative. Thus, based on the trial judge’s statements, we do not believe that this additional testimony by Rose Palomino would have convinced the trial judge that defendant met his burden in showing that his statement was not voluntary. There was no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant’s motion to suppress would have been different. Defendant has therefore failed to establish that he suffered prejudice as required by Strickland , and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. With regard to the same suppression hearing, defendant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present testimony that defendant was under the influence of phencyclidine (PCP) at the time he gave his statement, and that counsel failed to present expert testimony relating to the effects of PCP. To support the argument that he was, in fact, under the influence of PCP when he made his statement at the police station, defendant attaches the affidavits of two friends who were with defendant on the day of the murder, Efren Ramirez and Manuel Ramirez. In addition, defendant attaches an affidavit from Dr. Bruce Perry discussing how use of PCP could have affected defendant’s ability to make a free and voluntary statement. The affidavits on which defendant relies to support the argument that he was under the influence of PCP are insufficient to make a substantial showing that his right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated. In these affidavits, defendant’s friends stated that, on the day of the murder, they drank alcohol and smoked marijuana with defendant. Manuel Ramirez stated that “Eddie had mentioned” that PCP was present in the marijuana. Edward Ramirez stated that “there was PCP in the pot, you could taste it. I can tell the difference blindfolded.” Thus, evidence of defendant’s alleged PCP inhalation boils down to Edward Ramirez’s contention that defendant inhaled PCP because Edward “can tell the difference [between marijuana and PCP] blindfolded.” We reject defendant’s claim that these affidavits “clearly prove” that defendant had ingested PCP at the time of the murder. To the contrary, we find that the statement that Edward Ramirez “can tell the difference blindfolded” is speculative and insufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of PCP. Thus, even if defendant’s counsel would have presented the testimony of these two friends of defendant, we do not believe the result of suppression hearing would have differed. Defendant has not established that he suffered prejudice from his counsel’s failure to present the testimony of Efren Ramirez and Manuel Ramirez. Therefore, defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant next claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present any evidence in support of a motion counsel filed to suppress additional statements made by defendant at his apartment. At the suppression hearing on this motion, Officer Daniel Simon and Detectives John McCann and John Koclanis testified that, after leaving the crime scene on March 17, 1987, they proceeded to defendant’s apartment as part of their homicide investigation. When they arrived at defendant’s building, Officer Simon and his partner walked through a gangway and heard an argument between a woman, later identified as Josephine Palomino, and a man, later identified as defendant. They went through a door at the rear of the building which led into a vestibule area. At that time, the officers heard the following conversation: “Female: ‘Where have you been tonight?’ Male: ‘I have been out.’ Female: ‘Where have you been tonight?’ Male: ‘I saw someone get killed tonight.’ Female: ‘Your clothes are all full of blood, are all full of blood. You had something to do with it.’ Male: ‘I did it.’ ” On defendant’s first direct appeal, he argued that these statements should have been suppressed because the officers violated the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution when they listened to this conversation outside of defendant’s apartment door. We held that no fourth amendment “search” occurred because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation. Smith , 152 Ill. 2d at 245. We found that: (1) the area where the officers overhead the conversation was a common area; (2) the area where the officers where standing when they overhead the conversation was unlocked; (3) defendant’s voice was raised; and (4) the officers used no artificial means to enhance their ability to hear, nor did they enter an area where they had no legal right to be. Smith , 152 Ill. 2d at 245-46. Defendant now claims that his counsel should have introduced testimony from Josephine Palomino at the suppression hearing. In support of this claim, defendant has attached an affidavit from Josephine Palomino to his post-conviction petition, in which she states that defendant never said “I did it.” Palomino also states that the apartment door was “always locked.” Defendant now argues that had this testimony been introduced at the suppression hearing, the statement made at the apartment would have been suppressed. We find that, even if defendant’s statement “I did it” was suppressed, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant’s trial would have been different. Defendant made another statement at the police station confessing to the murder of Lisa Ferguson which included more detail than the mere statement “I did it.” That statement was written by an assistant State’s Attorney, signed by defendant and introduced at trial. As we noted in our opinion on defendant’s direct appeal, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming. See Smith , 152 Ill. 2d at 269. In light of the fact that this was not a closely balanced case, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant’s trial would have been different had the challenged statement never been admitted. Therefore, we find that defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the claimed error. Mahaffey , slip op. at 19.