Court Opinion

ID: 9379994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 20:03:34.304297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.746568
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                    2023 IL App (4th) 220360-U                          FILED
This Order was filed under                                                              March 16, 2023
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                  NO. 4-22-0360                              Carla Bender
                                                                                     4th District Appellate
not precedent except in the
                                      IN THE APPELLATE COURT                               Court, IL
limited circumstances allowed
under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                              OF ILLINOIS

                                          FOURTH DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                          )    Appeal from the
               Plaintiff-Appellee,                                )    Circuit Court of
               v.                                                 )    McLean County
    EUGENE EDWARDS LOUIS,                                         )    No. 18CF977
               Defendant-Appellant.                               )
                                                                  )    Honorable
                                                                  )    William G. Workman,
                                                                  )    Judge Presiding

                   JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court.
                   Justices Turner and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

                                                 ORDER

 ¶1       Held: The appellate court affirmed defendant’s sentence.

 ¶2                In September 2018, defendant, Eugene Edwards Louis, was charged with theft, a

 Class 4 felony (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(2)(B), (b)(2) (West 2018)). In January 2020, defendant

 pleaded guilty to that offense. The trial court later sentenced defendant to two years’ probation,

 requiring him to “fully cooperate with all recommended substance abuse treatment, as directed.”

 In February 2021, the court revoked defendant’s probation and later resentenced him to four

 years in prison.

 ¶3                Defendant appeals, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call

 defendant’s daughters to testify in mitigation at defendant’s sentencing hearing. We disagree and

 affirm the trial court’s sentence.

 ¶4                                        I. BACKGROUND
¶5                                  A. The Charges and Guilty Plea

¶6             In September 2018, the State charged defendant with theft. The State alleged

generally that defendant, who had previously been convicted of retail theft, stole money from

Sinda Saksenberg. In January 2020, defendant pleaded guilty to the theft charge in exchange for

an agreed sentence of two years of probation. As part of his probation, defendant was required to

“fully cooperate with all recommended substance abuse treatment, as directed.”

¶7             In May 2020, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation because he

was unsuccessfully discharged from Chestnut Health Systems (Chestnut), which provided

alcohol addiction treatment. In February 2021, defendant admitted that he violated his probation

as alleged in the petition by failing to complete substance abuse treatment. The trial court found

the petition was proved, ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI), and

set the matter for resentencing.

¶8                                   B. The Resentencing Hearing

¶9             In April 2021, the trial court conducted defendant’s resentencing hearing.

¶ 10                               1. Defendant’s Motion To Continue

¶ 11           At the beginning of the hearing, defendant’s trial counsel requested a continuance

“for the purpose of getting three mitigation witnesses we have not yet gotten in touch with,

specifically Marie Louis, Cindy Louis and Charlene Louis, three of [defendant’s] daughters.”

The court asked counsel how long he had known the daughters were potential mitigation

witnesses, to which counsel responded as follows:

                       “Your Honor, specifically I honestly got the family history when I

               received the April 20th dated pre-sentence investigation report. After speaking

               with [defendant] today, it is apparent that he wished to have them—wished to call

                                                 -2-
               them as witnesses. He had sent a message over the last couple weeks wanting to

               speak with me in the jail. I did not have a chance to do so with my schedule. So,

               today is the first that I heard specifically that it is his desire to call his three

               daughters as witnesses. I probably should have—I may have been able to obtain

               that information earlier. And, if so, that is on me. However, I was unaware until

               April 20th of their potential existence as witnesses.”

¶ 12           The trial court granted defendant’s motion and proposed continuing the

sentencing hearing until May 2021. However, after hearing the new date, defendant told his trial

counsel that the date likely did not provide enough time for his children “to make travel

schedules.” Defendant then stated his desire “just to proceed with the hearing,” and the court did

so.

¶ 13           Neither party presented any evidence in aggravation or mitigation. In closing, the

State pointed out that defendant had a consistent criminal record from 1975 through 2018 and

had received probation and minimal prison sentences on many of his convictions. Accordingly,

the State argued, because probation and minimal prison sentences had not curbed defendant’s

criminal behavior, the trial court should sentence defendant to the maximum available

extended-term prison sentence of six years.

¶ 14                                          2. The PSI

¶ 15           At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it considered the PSI, which

contained the following information.

¶ 16           Defendant finished eleventh grade in 1970 before earning his GED in 1996. Since

2004, defendant worked in a variety of labor, retail, and landscaping jobs. Regarding his criminal

history, defendant’s first conviction was for misdemeanor battery in 1975. Notably, since 1975,

                                                  -3-
defendant committed numerous felonies, including battery, obstruction of justice, and several

retail thefts. Regarding his family history, defendant had five daughters and seven grandchildren.

Defendant reported that he maintained a relationship with all his children.

¶ 17           Although defendant had suffered from depression and had used various legal and

illegal substances, his primary issues involved his addiction to alcohol, which began when he

was 17 years old. While on probation for the underlying offense, defendant tested positive for

alcohol several times. Defendant participated well while engaged in inpatient substance abuse

treatment. However, defendant struggled with attendance and meetings during the outpatient

portion of treatment. Defendant reported (1) experiencing depression to the extent that he could

not complete routine functions and (2) consuming large quantities of nonalcoholic beer, even

when instructed not to do so.

¶ 18           Defendant was unsuccessfully discharged from Chestnut, at staff request, because

of his (1) lack of progress, (2) failure to attend nearly half of the group sessions,

(3) noncompliance, (4) failure to attend 12-step meetings, and (5) lack of engagement with staff

to set up individual therapy. Defendant could have reapplied for services but chose not to.

¶ 19           The PSI also included a personal statement that defendant wrote describing how

his addictions had “destroyed” his life and how he wanted to “repair” his relationship with his

daughters.

¶ 20                 3. The Parties’ Arguments and the Trial Court’s Sentence

¶ 21           The State asked for the maximum-available extended-term prison sentence of six

years, pointing to defendant’s lengthy criminal record in the PSI as a factor in aggravation.

Defendant’s trial counsel argued that defendant’s decades of struggle with alcohol abuse as well

as recurring issues of depression and self-medication caused defendant’s criminal conduct. He

                                                 -4-
further argued that a long prison sentence would not put defendant in a better position upon

release and that defendant should either be given another sentence of probation or the minimum

extended-term sentence of three years.

¶ 22           Ultimately, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.

¶ 23                   C. Defendant’s Pro Se Ineffective Assistance Claim

¶ 24                           1. The Preliminary Krankel Hearing

¶ 25           Thereafter, defendant filed several motions alleging, among other things, that

because trial counsel did not meet with him before the sentencing hearing, he was unable to call

his daughters as mitigation witnesses. In December 2021, the trial court conducted a Krankel

hearing on defendant’s allegations. See People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045

(1984). At that hearing, trial counsel explained to the court that he had spoken with defendant

sufficiently in order to adequately represent him and that he was well prepared on the day of

sentencing. Further, counsel recalled that he obtained a continuance on behalf of defendant so

that he could call his children as witnesses, but defendant expressed his preference to proceed to

sentencing that day. Ultimately, the court determined that defendant’s claim warranted the

appointment of new counsel for further investigation.

¶ 26                               2. The Evidentiary Hearing

¶ 27           In April 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, at which defendant was represented by new counsel. Defendant

testified that trial counsel should have spoken with him so that he could call various mitigation

witnesses at sentencing. Specifically, defendant wanted to call family members, his landlord, his

employer, and people he met while at Chestnut.

¶ 28           When the trial court asked defendant what his family members’ testimony would

                                               -5-
have been, defendant responded, “You know, of course I haven’t been a real father, re-

incarcerated over—re-incarcerated, a opportunity to, you know, go back into treatment and the

type of father that I was to them, and, you know, things of that nature.” Defendant explained that

(1) his landlord would testify that defendant had been his tenant for eight years and would be

able to reside in the same place following his release from prison, (2) his employer would have

testified that defendant would have had steady employment and income, (3) workers at Chestnut

would have testified that “continued treatment would be more beneficial than prison and it was—

an opportunity was still accessible to [defendant].”

¶ 29           The trial court asked defendant whether he made the decision not to obtain a

continuance at the sentencing hearing, to which he replied in the affirmative. However,

defendant stated that he believed that decision was a mistake, explaining as follows:

                       “At the point when we brought that up it was for a 60-day continuance and

               then the fact that it was just brought up I had no opportunity to talk to [trial

               counsel] before the sentencing and I was under the impression that these

               individuals were going to have to be subpoenaed. And this is why I wanted to talk

               to him to get a subpoena for the witnesses to be there, and I never had the

               opportunity to do that.

                       So at the sentencing date when I mentioned that to him it was a total

               surprise. I wasn’t prepared to give him all information at that particular moment

               just right at that particular moment when I’ve been asking for months to meet

               with him to get the information to him to get them there to get the testimony that

               they were going to provide, and I never got it.

                       And at that point [the judge] said he could not go 60 days. He said I will

                                                -6-
               go to the 19th. And at this point I just said—I just gave up because I—my

               daughters live out of state, these other people, you know, it had to have time to

               get to them and I just needed more time.”

¶ 30           Trial counsel testified that defendant had told him only about his wanting to call

his daughters to testify and did not mention wishing to call any landlord or employer witnesses.

He reminded the trial court that he made a motion to continue so that he could investigate the

daughters. However, he would not have called a representative from the treatment provider at

Chestnut, as he “believed the potential aggravation that could be obtained through cross

examination of such a witness outweighed any potential mitigating evidence they could offer.”

Counsel stated that he did not know as to what the daughters would testify because they were

first brought up as possible character witnesses the day of sentencing.

¶ 31           After hearing arguments, the trial court explained that it had no doubt defendant

“was a good father to his daughters and that they would have asked for a second chance for their

father,” but defendant was being sentenced for “his violation of his prior community[-]based

sentence, *** specifically the failure to comply with the treatment.” Ultimately, the court found

that trial counsel’s representation was neither deficient nor prejudicial to defendant.

¶ 32           This appeal followed.

¶ 33                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 34           Defendant appeals, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call

his daughters to testify in mitigation at his sentencing hearing. We disagree and affirm the trial

court’s sentence.

¶ 35                   A. The Applicable Law and the Standard of Review

¶ 36           To state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must allege that

                                                -7-
(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel’s

deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 30, 89

N.E.3d 366 (quoting People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36, 987 N.E.2d 767, citing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). “Specifically, a defendant must show that

counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and

that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “A reasonable

probability is defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland

test and a failure to satisfy [either] of the prongs precludes a finding of ineffectiveness.” Id.

¶ 37           “ ‘We review a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a

bifurcated fashion, deferring to the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are contrary to the

manifest weight of the evidence, but assessing de novo the ultimate legal question of whether

counsel was ineffective.’ ” People v. Walker, 2021 IL App (4th) 190073, ¶ 29, 188 N.E.3d 1235

(quoting People v. Manoharan, 394 Ill. App. 3d 762, 769, 916 N.E.2d 134, 141 (2009)). “A

court’s evidentiary determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the

opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not

based on the evidence presented.” People v. Golden, 2021 IL App (2d) 200207, ¶ 62, 191 N.E.3d

814.

¶ 38                                        B. This Case

¶ 39           Defendant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

to investigate and call defendant’s daughters to testify in mitigation at his sentencing hearing.

Defendant asserts that had he called those witnesses, there was a reasonable probability that his

                                                 -8-
sentence would have been shorter. Defendant’s argument is without merit.

¶ 40           Defendant essentially argues that the trial court erred by finding that trial

counsel’s performance was not prejudicial because the aggravating evidence in the PSI—namely,

his struggle with addiction, lengthy criminal history, and failure to complete probation—would

have been offset by defendant’s daughters’ testimony. However, his contention is groundless

because there is not a reasonable probability that, had trial counsel called defendant’s daughters

as mitigation witnesses, the court would have found that the mitigating circumstances warranted

a lower sentence than four years in prison.

¶ 41           First, the PSI provided ample evidence in both aggravation and mitigation for the

trial court to make its sentencing decision. The report was comprehensive, providing in-depth

information regarding defendant’s (1) lengthy criminal history, (2) family history, (3) mental and

physical health problems, (4) alcohol and drug treatment history, (5) economic status, and

(6) status since being sentenced to probation. In addition, defendant wrote a personal statement,

in which he detailed his struggle with addiction, described his poor familial relationships,

accepted responsibility for his actions, and asked for another “opportunity to save” himself.

Further, despite trial counsel not presenting mitigating evidence, counsel nonetheless crafted an

argument based on the PSI and his personal experience with defendant that emphasized

defendant’s struggles with alcohol and successes with treatment, which counsel believed

warranted a new order of probation.

¶ 42           Second, we need not speculate as to what the trial court would have done when

confronted with the daughters’ testimony because the court explicitly considered the impact of

that testimony during the Krankel hearing, concluding that it would not have “changed the

outcome ultimately of the sentence that was received.” That finding is well supported by the

                                                -9-
record. The court had already been presented with information regarding defendant’s addiction,

mental health, and familial relationships through the PSI and defendant’s personal statement.

¶ 43           At the Krankel hearing, when the trial court asked defendant what his daughters’

testimony would have been, he replied, “You know, of course I haven’t been a real father, re-

incarcerated over—re-incarcerated, a opportunity to, you know, go back into treatment and the

type of father that I was to them, and, you know, things of that nature.” Such testimony would

have merely confirmed what the court already heard—namely, that defendant wanted another

chance at probation and had a lengthy criminal history. See People v. Burnett, 385 Ill. App. 3d

610, 614, 897 N.E.2d 827, 832 (2008) (concluding that counsel was not ineffective because the

PSI and argument during sentencing brought forth all the mitigating factors defendant alleged

trial counsel should have raised).

¶ 44           Additionally, had defendant’s daughters testified, they would have been subject to

cross-examination and could have been probed for more aggravating evidence, such as

defendant’s history of substance abuse and the effect of his addiction upon the family. See

People v. Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th) 170035, ¶ 105, 126 N.E.3d 703 (“[A] history of substance

abuse is a ‘double-edged sword’ that the trial court may view as a mitigating or aggravating

factor.”) (quoting People v. Mertz, 218 Ill. 2d 1, 83, 842 N.E.2d 618, 662 (2005)).

¶ 45           Last, even without the trial court’s finding that the daughters’ testimony would be

unhelpful, any mitigating effect the daughters’ testimony could have presented pales in

comparison to the mountain of aggravating evidence contained in the PSI and certainly would

not have created “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” of the

sentencing hearing. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.

¶ 46           Defendant was facing prison for violating his probation by failing to complete an

                                              - 10 -
alcohol treatment program and clearly could not control his drinking and criminal behavior.

Based on this record, no reasonable probability exists that the trial court would have resentenced

this defendant to probation merely because his estranged daughters testified that he was an

absentee father and grandfather who deserved another chance to make things right with his

family. Accordingly, defendant was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s alleged failure to introduce

the daughters’ testimony during sentencing.

¶ 47                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 48           For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 49           Affirmed.

                                              - 11 -