Opinion ID: 2093466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Defense Theory of the Case

Text: In his pro se posttrial motions, defendant claimed that defense counsel failed to develop a coherent theory of defense. In support of this claim, defendant listed numerous questions that he thought should have been put to various witnesses. He named several individuals who, in his opinion, should have been subpoenaed to testify for the defense and asserted that he had given these names to counsel prior to trial. These included members of the hotel staff who would testify that he was a generous tipper and that he and his wife treated them with generous benevolence. He accused counsel of failing to subpoena the personnel files of hotel employees to discover any instances of disciplinary action and of failing to subpoena records from other hotels that he and his family had stayed at in the past. He also claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the Lombard police department. Finally, defendant stated that counsel was ineffective for failing to file various motions that defendant requested and gave the case numbers for reference. The requested motions included a motion to dismiss a frivolous complaint, a motion to dismiss indictment, and a motion to dismiss for malicious prosecution. The appellate court resolved this issue by noting that defendant failed to show that any mitigating evidence was indeed available and, thus, he had no evidence to support his claim that counsel failed to investigate or present favorable evidence. Although the trial court and the appellate court both found these claims to lack merit, he has properly preserved these issues for review under Strickland. Before this court, defendant claims that the dispute between himself and the hotel was entirely a civil matter involving breach of contract and an unpaid debt. Defendant argues further that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to present available evidence that would have bolstered his theory of the case and countered the State's evidence against him. The available evidence that defendant refers to is a brochure from HG Global Workplaces, which describes flexible turn-key officing solutions available at the address defendant provided to the hotel for his company, Prolific Development Corporation. The brochure states that HG Global provides a mailing address and other facilities to small or virtual businesses. According to defendant, defense counsel could have subpoenaed records and a representative of HQ Global to authenticate the existence of a business address for Prolific Development Corporation and explain its office status. He asserts that the address he provided to the hotel was not fraudulent, but was a legitimate business mailing address, at least at some point. Further, counsel could have shown the defendant's claim to hotel personnel that he was having trouble with mail delivery to be more plausible, rather than leaving it for the jury to believe that the address did not exist. This is the only specific example offered in defendant's brief of defense counsel's alleged failure to make reasonable efforts to counter the State's case. The State responds that defense counsel's decisions regarding what documentary evidence to subpoena and which witnesses to present are matters of trial strategy and that these decisions ultimately rest with defense counsel, citing People v. West, 187 Ill.2d 418, 432, 241 Ill.Dec. 535, 719 N.E.2d 664 (1999) (decisions concerning which witnesses to call and what evidence to present are matters of trial strategy and are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel). The trial court heard the lengthy testimony of defense counsel at the posttrial hearing and clearly found his testimony to be credible. Defense counsel testified that he based his decision on what witnesses to call on whether the defense would get nothing but positive response from those witnesses, relative to the theory of our defense. He stated that his conversations with several of the witnesses suggested by defendant revealed that it would not have been beneficial to [defendant] to subpoena certain witnesses on that list. He concluded that the risk of having those witnesses testify about their dealings with defendant outweighed the probative value. Defense counsel also testified that he called the only two witnesses whose testimony he expected to be useful in establishing the defense theory. These two individuals testified that they were in business with defendant and that he reasonably anticipated that the deal he was working on during the time he was staying at the hotel would be profitable and would enable him to pay the hotel what he owed. Counsel also stated that he declined to call other suggested witnesses, such as the hotel's van driver, because their testimony would be peripheral to the theory of the defense. He decided not to subpoena information from other hotels at which defendant had stayed because he had learned from defendant's prior attorney that there had been a bill left outstanding when Mr. Perry vacated one of those hotels and that he would be opening a Pandora's box if he made an issue of defendant's previous lengthy hotel stays. He did not subpoena documents regarding the mailing address for Prolific because he did not think that the defense needed to establish the status of the company in order to raise the defense that defendant did not engage in deceit because he intended to pay the hotel, but was simply unable to do so because of a business deal that fell through. Based on our review of the trial transcript and of the transcript of the hearing on defendant's posttrial motions, we conclude that he has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that defense counsel's decisions regarding witnesses and documentary evidence were not within the realm of trial strategy. People v. Enis, 194 Ill.2d 361, 378, 252 Ill.Dec. 427, 743 N.E.2d 1 (2000). Further, even if defense counsel makes a mistake in trial strategy or tactics or an error in judgment, this will not render representation constitutionally defective. West, 187 Ill.2d at 432-33, 241 Ill.Dec. 535, 719 N.E.2d 664. Only if counsel's trial strategy is so unsound that he entirely fails to conduct meaningful adversarial testing of the State's case will ineffective assistance of counsel be found. West, 187 Ill.2d at 432-33, 241 Ill.Dec. 535, 719 N.E.2d 664. This is not such a case.