Opinion ID: 2083453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Request a Batson Hearing

Text: Defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) to explore the State's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges against African-American venirepersons. The record reveals that defendant's counsel did indeed object to the State's use of peremptory challenges. Early in the jury selection process, the following colloquy occurred: MR. BROWNFIELD [defense attorney]: Judge, I believe in that twenty-seven there has only been three blacks and the State has knocked off all three blacks. MR. TRUTENKO [assistant State's Attorney]: That's not true. That's not true. MS. ROUSE [defense attorney]: Two. MR. VELCICH [assistant State's Attorney]: Maurice Miller is black, left on. MR. BROWNFIELD: What number is that? MR. TRUTENKO: Number thirteen. MR. VELCICH: Thirteen. MR. BROWNFIELD: I'm sorry. I withdraw my objection. The jury selection continued and defense counsel raised no additional objections to the State's use of its peremptory challenges. Defendant argues that trial counsel was deficient in failing to renew his objection and subsequently request a Batson hearing. In support of his claim, defendant attached two sets of handwritten notes allegedly taken by his defense attorneys contemporaneously with voir dire. Defendant also attached copies of the jury summons and corresponding juror information forms for six venirepersons who were stricken by the State with peremptory challenges. Defendant contends that this evidence establishes that the State exercised a discriminatory pattern of strikes against African-Americans and also utilized a disproportionate number of its peremptory challenges against African-Americans. See People v. Andrews, 146 Ill.2d 413, 428-30, 167 Ill.Dec. 996, 588 N.E.2d 1126 (1992). Defendant argues that this evidence, combined with the interracial nature of the crimes, clearly establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87. Notwithstanding defendant's arguments, based on the record before us, we find that defendant failed to make a substantial showing of a Batson violation. The defendant asserting a Batson violation bears the burden of preserving the record. People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d 401, 428, 193 Ill.Dec. 128, 626 N.E.2d 161 (1993). For a meaningful appellate review of the issue, the record must disclose the race of the venirepersons. People v. McDonald, 125 Ill.2d 182, 194-95, 125 Ill.Dec. 781, 530 N.E.2d 1351 (1988). Moreover, any ambiguities in the record on the issue are construed against the defendant. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d at 428,193 Ill.Dec. 128, 626 N.E.2d 161. We initially observe that the notes defendant alleges his trial attorneys recorded during voir dire are not supported by affidavit or authenticated in any manner. The Post-Conviction Hearing Act requires the defendant's petition to support his allegations of constitutional violations by affidavits, records, or other evidence. 725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 1994). Evidence supporting defendant's post-conviction allegations must be accompanied by an affidavit which identifies with reasonable certainty the source, character, and availability of the alleged evidence. People v. Johnson, 154 Ill.2d 227, 239-40,182 Ill.Dec. 1, 609 N.E.2d 304 (1993). Without supporting affidavits, this court is unable to determine the source of the notes defendant offers or whether they were written contemporaneously with voir dire. Even if the voir dire notes were properly supported, their contents are too ambiguous to substantiate defendant's claim. First, the race of all the venirepersons was not recorded. See McDonald, 125 Ill.2d at 194-95, 125 Ill.Dec. 781, 530 N.E.2d 1351. Moreover, the notes, apparently written by at least two persons, contain disparities in the race recorded for several venirepersons. In addition, the juror information cards defendant offers contain absolutely no information indicative of the race of the stricken venirepersons. Generally, a post-conviction petition which is not properly supported by affidavits or other evidence is dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless the petitioner's allegation stands uncontradicted and is clearly supported by the record. Johnson, 154 Ill.2d at 240, 182 Ill.Dec. 1, 609 N.E.2d 304. Here, the trial record establishes that the State exercised 12 of its 14 available peremptory challenges. The portion of voir dire quoted above establishes that at least one African-American served on the jury and that the State used two of its peremptory challenges to strike African-American venirepersons (see People v. Andrews, 132 Ill.2d 451, 460-61, 139 Ill.Dec. 469, 548 N.E.2d 1025 (1989) (trial counsel's statement on the record is adequate evidence to establish African-American venirepersons were peremptorily challenged)). Nevertheless, an inference of racial discrimination is not raised simply because African-American venirepersons were peremptorily challenged. Batson, 476 U.S. at 101,106 S.Ct. at 1725, 90 L.Ed.2d at 91 (White, J., concurring); People v. Coleman, 155 Ill.2d 507, 513,187 Ill.Dec. 479, 617 N.E.2d 1200 (1993). Therefore, defendant's allegation of a Batson violation is not supported by the record and, accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of this claim without an evidentiary hearing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.