Opinion ID: 1119911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Reference Order

Text: Our reference order directed the referee to take evidence and make findings on nine questions: (1) What action was taken by trial counsel to obtain and present evidence concerning defendant's age at the time of the murders for which defendant was convicted? (2) What further action, if any, would competent counsel have undertaken to obtain and present evidence concerning defendant's age? (3) Was defendant denied his right to competent representation of counsel by reason of counsel's failure to undertake further action to obtain and present evidence concerning defendant's age? (4) What action was taken by trial counsel to obtain and present evidence concerning defendant's whereabouts on March 15, 1981, the date of the murder of Ascencion Hernandez? (5) What further action, if any, would competent counsel have undertaken to obtain and present evidence concerning defendant's whereabouts? (6) Was defendant denied his right to competent representation by counsel by reason of counsel's failure to undertake further action to obtain and present evidence concerning defendant's whereabouts? (7) What action was taken by trial counsel to obtain and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of defendant's trial? (8) What further action, if any, would competent counsel have undertaken to obtain and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase? (9) Was defendant denied his right to competent representation of counsel by reason of counsel's failure to undertake further action to obtain and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase? We did not order a reference with respect to petitioner's claim that his counsel did not adequately argue the motion to suppress the evidence, including petitioner's confession, that was derived from an allegedly illegal arrest. The validity of the arrest and the question of suppression of petitioner's confession as a product thereof is discussed at length in the appeal. Petitioner asserts that the trial court apparently was unaware that the arrest warrant relied upon in its ruling was for a different Gonzalo Marquez and argues that defense counsel should have corrected that misconception. Suffice it to say that the record does not support petitioner's assumption that the trial court was unaware that the erroneously recalled arrest warrant was for a different Gonzalo Marquez. Accordingly, this claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel fails.