Opinion ID: 2013856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Michael Melius

Text: Defendant next claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call as a witness Michael Melius, former public defender for Lake County, who represented defendant in the sexual assault case. According to Melius' affidavit, defense counsel did not interview him prior to defendant's retrial. Melius states that he would have testified that the sexual assault case was defensible; that he had advised defendant that there was a good chance of a not-guilty finding; that defendant was a cooperative client; and that defendant never expressed any hostility toward Entrata. The gist of defendant's claim is that Melius' testimony would have blunted the State's suggested motive for the murder, i.e., because defendant expected a favorable outcome in the sexual assault case, there was no need to murder Entrata. In deciding an ineffectiveness claim, the reasonableness of counsel's conduct must be judged on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695. In the present case, defendant's counsel had available to him a record of Melius' testimony at defendant's first trial. See Enis, 139 Ill.2d at 275-76, 151 Ill.Dec. 493, 564 N.E.2d 1155. Melius testified, in relevant part, that statements Entrata made to police indicated that she recognized her attacker as defendant, whom she knew from her place of employment, and that Melius believed he told defendant that the outcome of the sexual assault case depended largely on the credibility of Entrata. Enis, 139 Ill.2d at 275-76, 151 Ill.Dec. 493, 564 N.E.2d 1155. Defendant's counsel could have reasonably determined that Melius' testimony would reinforce, rather than blunt, the State's suggested motive for the murder of Entrata. Accordingly, counsel's decision not to call Melius was not deficient. Assuming counsel's decision was deficient, defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Melius' proposed testimony, like that of Moselle Williams, would not have negated defendant's motive for murdering Entrata. Nor would his testimony have called into doubt the testimony of the three eyewitnesses who identified defendant. In the absence of a showing of prejudice, the trial court properly rejected defendant's claim. The trial court also properly rejected defendant's related claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise, on direct appeal, trial counsel's ineffectiveness for not calling Melius as a witness. Because the underlying issue has no merit, defendant has suffered no prejudice due to appellate counsel's failure to raise this issue on direct appeal. See Childress, 191 Ill.2d at 175, 246 Ill.Dec. 352, 730 N.E.2d 32.