Opinion ID: 2013856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Joseph Caliendo and David Asma

Text: Defendant claims that trial counsel was also ineffective for failing to subpoena Joseph Caliendo and David Asma, investigators for the Lake County public defender. Defendant attached to his post-conviction petition the affidavits of Caliendo and Asma. Defendant argues that the testimony of Caliendo and Asma would have impeached the identification testimony of Clara Burk, Richard Hanson, and Sylvia Barrett. Defendant's claims relating to the impeachment of Burk and Hanson were not raised in defendant's pro se post-conviction petition, in his amended petition, or in the supplement to his amended petition. Accordingly, these claims are waived. See 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 1998); People v. Moore, 189 Ill.2d 521, 544, 245 Ill.Dec. 95, 727 N.E.2d 348 (2000). We consider only defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call Caliendo or Asma to impeach Barrett's identification testimony. The affidavits of both Asma and Caliendo indicate that they would testify that on February 4, 1988, they interviewed Barrett. At that time, Barrett stated that she could not remember the color of the sunglasses that the man she saw in the parking lot on August 10, 1987, was wearing; that she did not see the man carrying anything, nor was she aware of whether the man was wearing gloves; that she was not sure that the man in the photograph that she selected was the man she saw in the parking lot; that the man in the photograph most closely resembled the man in the parking lot; and that the police stated, following her identification of defendant in a photographic lineup, Yeah, that is the guy. Asma also states in his affidavit that he would testify that he interviewed Barrett on February 18, 1988, following her testimony at a hearing prior to defendant's first trial. Barrett advised Asma and assistant public defender David Brodsky that she did not recognize defendant, who was seated at counsel's table, as the man she saw in the parking lot on August 10, 1987. Finally, Asma states that he would testify that, on March 8, 1988, Asma and Brodsky spoke to Barrett by telephone. Barrett told them that she was not sure of the color of the sunglasses; that she does not remember who suggested to her the actual color of the sunglasses; and that, at the February 18, 1988, hearing, defendant looked totally different from the man in the parking lot and the man she selected out of the photographic lineup. The record discloses that Barrett testified at the second trial that she did not recall whether the man she saw in the parking lot was wearing sunglasses or gloves. Therefore, the proposed testimony of Caliendo and Asma, that Barrett said she did not remember the color of the sunglasses and was not aware if the man was wearing gloves, would not have impeached her testimony. In addition, Barrett was never questioned at the second trial as to whether the man she saw in the parking lot had anything in his hands. The proposed testimony of Caliendo and Asma, that Barrett said she did not see the man carrying anything, would not have impeached her testimony. With respect to Asma's proposed testimony that Barrett stated that defendant looked totally different on February 18, 1988, from the man in the parking lot, the record reveals that defense counsel cross-examined Barrett on this matter. Barrett testified, however, that she did recognize defendant at the February 18, 1988, hearing. Counsel tried to impeach Barrett with her testimony from defendant's first trial in which she admitted that, on February 18, 1988, she did not recognize defendant and that defendant looked basically different on that day. Barrett, however, did not recall giving this testimony. The parties stipulated to Barrett's testimony from the first trial, and this stipulation was read to the jury. Defendant has failed to demonstrate how counsel's decision to perfect the impeachment of Barrett by way of stipulation, rather than with Asma's live testimony, is objectively unreasonable. The only other matter to which Asma and Caliendo would have testified is that Barrett said she picked the photograph of the person that most closely resembled the man she saw in the parking lot and that police acknowledged, that is the guy. Even if we concluded that counsel's failure to call Asma or Caliendo on this point was deficient, defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had Barrett's testimony been impeached in this way. Two other witnesses made in-court identifications of defendant. Clara Burk testified that defendant was the man she saw pursue Entrata from the parking lot into the building on August 10, 1987, and Richard Hanson also testified that defendant was the man he saw running in the parking lot that morning. On this record, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice. Further, it follows that defendant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel's failure to raise this issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness. See Childress, 191 Ill.2d at 175, 246 Ill.Dec. 352, 730 N.E.2d 32.