Opinion ID: 2094772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Failure of Appellate Counsel to Supplement the Record on Direct Appeal or Seek a Remand

Text: Defendant next contends that Kubalanza was ineffective when she represented him on appeal. Specifically, he alleges that, by the time she filed his appellate brief, she (1) had obtained the OPS report finding a systemic pattern and practice of torture at Area 2; (2) had obtained an OPS report finding that Burge had tortured Wilson and recommending that Burge be fired; and (3) knew that the police board was holding public hearings at which Shadeed Mumin, Wilson, and Melvin Jones testified about acts of torture that closely paralleled the acts described by defendant. Defendant contends that Kubalanza should have either sought to supplement the record with this information or sought a remand to the trial court for a hearing on these issues. Supreme Court Rule 329 (134 Ill.2d R. 329) permits a party to amend the record on appeal to correct [m]aterial omissions, inaccuracies, or improper authentication. Rule 329 is not a vehicle through which a party may supplement a record with evidence that was not presented in the lower court. People v. Evans, 125 Ill.2d 50, 94, 125 Ill.Dec. 790, 530 N.E.2d 1360 (1988). Because the evidence defendant now relies upon was not presented in the lower court, no reasonable probability exists that, had a motion to supplement been made, that it would have been granted. Turning to defendant's assertion that Kubalanza should have filed a motion for remand, we are unable to conclude that Kubalanza's failure to file such a motion fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Although such a motion is not necessarily improper, defendant has not identified a single statute, court rule, or case that authorizes such a motion. Because of this, we are unable to conclude that Kubalanza's failure to file the motion was objectively unreasonable.