Court Opinion

ID: 9716195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:30:28.289561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:42.853135
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: Relief is not available under the post-conviction hearing procedure for issues which were or should have been raised on direct appeal, and an affirmance on direct appeal is res judicata as to all such issues. People v. Churchill (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 1006, 416 N.E.2d 395. In the case at bar, the question of whether the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel was dealt with and decided contrary to the petitioner on direct appeal. The petitioner’s appellate brief alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective and “should have allowed him to take the stand on his own behalf and present the testimony of alibi witnesses rather than present a defense of misidentification.” The petitioner asserted in his amended post-conviction petition that he was “denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section Eight of the Illinois Constitution in that counsel should have allowed this petitioner to take the stand on his own behalf and present the testimony of alibi witnesses rather than present a defense of misidentification.” It is clear that the issue raised in the post-conviction petition is identical to the issue decided on direct appeal, and therefore, the trial court properly dismissed. The majority has allowed the petitioner to sidestep the application of the doctrine of res judicata by piecemealing aspects of what was decided on direct appeal. The problem with such piecemealing is twofold. First, the petitioner did not make the distinction between what was decided on direct appeal and what an evidentiary hearing would show in his post-conviction petition. He should not be allowed to make such a distinction in the instant appeal. Secondly, it is evident that the crux of petitioner’s post-conviction petition is his allegation that trial counsel presented the wrong defense at trial. That is, trial counsel was ineffective for not allowing petitioner to take the stand and present an alibi defense rather than a defense of misidentification. This court held on direct appeal that trial counsel was not ineffective in his choice of defenses. The record on appeal contained all facts necessary to decide the issue of trial counsel’s competence. Any additional facts supplied by an evidentiary hearing on the post-conviction petition would not have altered the decision that trial counsel was competent. Accordingly, I dissent.