Opinion ID: 2483089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Inquiry Into Defendant's Claim of Trial Lawyers' Ineffectiveness

Text: Defendant's tenth point for review is that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into defendant's statements that his trial lawyers were ineffective. After denying counsel's motions for a new trial and new sentencing hearing, the court asked defendant if he had anything to say. Defendant said that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to call a law enforcement officer who would have testified on his behalf during the trial and that counsel had selected a biased juror. Asked by the court to comment, defense counsel stated, We did everything in our power we thought to defend him in this case. The court asked, Including the examination of any possible witnesses or any possible other avenues that could be presented on his behalf? Counsel replied that he had. Defendant argues that when a defendant asserts that his trial counsel had been ineffective, he may be entitled to different counsel to investigate those claims. People v. Johnson, 159 Ill.2d 97, 124, 201 Ill.Dec. 53, 636 N.E.2d 485 (1994). The trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry into allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim. Johnson, 159 Ill.2d at 124, 201 Ill.Dec. 53, 636 N.E.2d 485; People v. James, 362 Ill.App.3d 250, 256, 298 Ill.Dec. 488, 839 N.E.2d 1135 (2005). Here, defendant contends the trial court did not inquire into the factual basis of his claims. The court merely asked counsel whether he believed that the defense had been diligent. He asserts that this court should remand the cause for the appointment of new counsel to investigate defendant's claims that his trial attorneys were ineffective, citing People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 189, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). The State contends the trial court adequately inquired into defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective and it was not required to appoint new counsel. Defendant's ineffectiveness claims were twofold: (1) that defense counsel had failed to call a law enforcement officer that could have testified in [his] trial, and (2) that counsel had seated a juror whom he did not want. The State concedes that this court has held that in some circumstances, new counsel should be appointed to investigate a defendant's claims of ineffectiveness by his trial attorneys. See People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). The law is clear, however, that new counsel is not required in every case, and that the operative concern for a reviewing court is whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry into the pro se defendant's claim of ineffective assistance. Johnson, 159 Ill.2d at 125, 201 Ill.Dec. 53, 636 N.E.2d 485. Where the claim lacks merit or pertains to matters of trial strategy, no counsel should be appointed. People v. Crane, 145 Ill.2d 520, 533, 165 Ill.Dec. 703, 585 N.E.2d 99 (1991). In this case, the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry and thus rightfully declined to appoint counsel for defendant. Defendant claims that the trial court's entire inquiry into his complaint regarding the witness consisted of the court asking defense counsel whether he examined any possible witnesses or any possible other avenues that could be presented on his behalf, but this statement fails to take into account that the trial court had been presented with the exact same complaint regarding defendant's trial counsel twice previously. On May 16, 2005, prior to commencement of the trial, defense counsel informed the court that his client wanted to talk to the court about the same witness. Counsel explained to the court that he talked to his client about it at length and that counsel did not believe the witness should be called. On the next court date, the issue was addressed again by the court via a motion to withdraw filed by defense counsel. Counsel explained to the court that defendant's family had located a potential witness, specifically, a state trooper who had stopped defendant on two occasions, but that counsel did not want to call the trooper as a witness, and that he considered the potential testimony aggravation. The trial court talked to defendant regarding the witness and explained to him that he had four competent attorneys and told defendant that he needed to realize that they were not calling the witness because in their expert opinion, it would do more harm than good. These two exchanges between defendant and the court explain why the trial court's inquiry on September 19, 2006, did not need to be lengthy. The court was already familiar with the substance of defendant's complaint regarding his counsel since it was presented on the two prior occasions. As such, the inquiry conducted by the trial court was sufficient to satisfy the requirement set forth in Johnson. It is well established that decisions concerning whether to call certain witnesses for the defense are matters of trial strategy left to the discretion of trial counsel. People v. Enis, 194 Ill.2d 361, 378, 252 Ill.Dec. 427, 743 N.E.2d 1 (2000). Defendant's other complaint revolved around counsel's decision to seat a juror whom defendant believed to be biased. The law is equally clear that defense counsel's conduct during voir dire involves matters of trial strategy that generally are not subject to scrutiny under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See also People v. Metcalfe, 202 Ill.2d 544, 561-62, 270 Ill.Dec. 69, 782 N.E.2d 263 (2002). Here, both of defendant's complaints fell under the parameters of trial strategy and therefore the trial court did not err in choosing not to appoint counsel.