Court Opinion

ID: 9743587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:37:25.007416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.268483
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE MILLER, specially concurring: The defendant, in the direct appeal from his conviction and death sentence, challenges his trial attorney’s performance on several different grounds. With little or no discussion, the majority rejects these contentions, concluding that they are without merit. Although I agree with the court’s ultimate determination, I write separately to explain the basis for my agreement. The defendant raises four distinct challenges to his trial attorney’s performance. The defendant first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek the suppression of his inculpatory statements on the ground that they were involuntary. The statements at issue consist of the defendant’s prearrest tape-recorded conversation with a police informant and his two post-arrest confessions to an assistant State’s Attorney. The defendant alleges that he was under the influence of illicit drugs during his conversation with the informant and during the initial session of official interrogation, and that he was experiencing withdrawal symptoms during the concluding session of interrogation. The defendant asserts that his faculties were impaired at those times and that the statements he made on those occasions must therefore be deemed involuntary. As a related matter, the defendant argues that he was unable for the same reasons to make knowing and intelligent waivers of his Miranda rights prior to being questioned by the assistant State’s Attorney. The majority opinion considers only the defendant’s post-arrest statements and, in a brief discussion, concludes that the defendant’s Miranda waivers were valid and his custodial statements voluntary. Trial counsel properly refrained from attempting to challenge, on voluntariness grounds, admission of the defendant’s prearrest tape-recorded conversation with the police informant. At the time of that conversation, the defendant was not in custody and had not yet been charged with the present offense. Accordingly, the admission of the statement into evidence did not implicate any of the defendant’s constitutional rights. (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990), 496 U.S. 292, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243, 110 S. Ct. 2394; Hoffa v. United States (1966), 385 U.S. 293, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374, 87 S. Ct. 408.) With regard to the post-arrest statements, the defendant offers only conclusory allegations that his consumption of drugs must have diminished his mental functioning, and the record evidence contradicts the defendant’s intoxication theory. At trial, the assistant State’s Attorney who conducted the interrogations testified that the defendant was alert and lucid throughout those periods, agreed to waive his rights under Miranda, and had no difficulty understanding or answering questions. On each occasion, the defendant provided a coherent and detailed account of his role in the offense charged here. In addition, during the later round of questioning, the defendant was specifically asked whether he was then under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, and he responded in the negative. Interrogation ceased when, during the preparation of the formal statement, the defendant requested the assistance of counsel. Entirely absent from the present case is any element of police coercion or overreaching, a necessary predicate for a finding of involuntariness. Colorado v. Connelly (1986), 479 U.S. 157, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473, 107 S. Ct. 515. A motion by defense counsel seeking suppression of the defendant’s statements on the grounds raised here would have been unavailing. An attorney will not be considered ineffective under Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052, for failing to pursue what would have been a futile motion (People v. Hall (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 376, 408), and the present challenges to defense counsel’s performance must therefore be rejected. The defendant next argues that trial counsel did not properly challenge, under Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667, 98 S. Ct. 2674, the police officer’s affidavit that was used to obtain authorization for the consensual eavesdropping device. In the present case, authority for the use of the device was obtained in accordance with the provisions of article 108A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (111. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 108A — 1 through 108A — 11). Applying the Franks principles to the order procured under this statutory regimen, I would conclude that the authorization was valid, notwithstanding certain discrepancies in the supporting affidavit. Throughout the trial, defense counsel was permitted to attack the police officer’s affidavit that had been used to obtain authorization for the eavesdropping device. The testimony received on this question discloses that the officer incorrectly included an offense in the list of those for which the informant had previously provided assistance and neglected to state that the informant was then in jail on a pending charge and had been in jail at other times. In addition, contrary to the assertion contained in the affidavit, it was not clear whether the informant had actually seen the murder weapon. The trial judge rejected the defense contention that these discrepancies in the officer’s affidavit would have vitiated the order authorizing the use of the eavesdropping device. A search may be upheld under Franks if, after excision of the challenged statements from the supporting affidavit, the remaining information would have provided probable cause for issuance of the warrant. (Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 682, 98 S. Ct. at 2684; People v. Edwards (1991), 144 Ill. 2d 108, 132; People v. Eyler (1989), 133 Ill. 2d 173, 204.) Contrary to the defendant’s contention, allegations that are objectionable under Franks will not automatically doom a supporting affidavit. (People v. Lucente (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 133, 145-46.) Adapting these principles to the statutory context here, I would conclude that the remaining allegations in the officer’s affidavit would have satisfied the statutory requirements for authorization of the consensual eavesdropping device. Those allegations established the informant’s consent to use of the eavesdropping device and provided reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the felony and that conversations concerning that offense could be obtained through use of the device. (See 111. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 108A — 4.) Accordingly, it cannot be said that trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to perfect the Franks objection in advance of trial. In his next challenge to trial counsel’s performánce, the defendant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce at the pretrial competency hearing records detailing his earlier treatment for mental illness. The defendant believes that this additional evidence would have provided strong support for his claim that he was not competent to stand trial. The majority opinion rejects the defendant’s contention on the grounds that defense counsel requested a fitness hearing and had the defendant examined by a psychiatrist. It is not clear from the court’s discussion whether the majority believes that obtaining an expert opinion and having a hearing, without more, must generally be deemed sufficient to fulfill counsel’s professional obligations with respect to an accused’s fitness claim. If so, the majority ignores the present defendant’s contention that other evidence bearing on the question was available and that counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce it at the fitness hearing. In any event, I would note that the evidence at issue here was remote in time, and that the substance of it was before the trial court anyway. The additional evidence the defendant now suggests should have been submitted at the competency hearing was simply too remote in time to be relevant here and would not.have been helpful to the judge in determining the defendant’s competency to stand trial. This information consisted of 20-year-old records made during the defendant’s commitment to a State mental health center following a suicide attempt in the 1960s. In the proceedings below, the psychiatrist who examined the defendant was aware of the defendant’s personal history and the circumstances of his prior treatment. The records themselves would have been of doubtful utility to the judge in determining the defendant’s competency to stand trial at the time relevant here. See People v. Woods (1963), 26 Ill. 2d 557, 561. In a related contention, which the majority opinion does not address, the defendant argues that counsel was ineffective for waiting until the eve of trial to make the competency motion. The defendant believes that an earlier motion would have permitted counsel to obtain additional expert opinions on the competency issue. It is not evident from this record, however, that counsel had cause to present the motion at an earlier time. Counsel made the motion because he was having difficulty communicating with the defendant in preparation for trial, and the defendant has presented nothing to indicate that counsel should have raised the issue earlier. The defendant’s final series of challenges to trial counsel’s performance pertains to the capital sentencing hearing conducted in the present case. The defendant first argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to present, during the second' stage of the sentencing hearing, evidence of the defendant’s history of mental illness. The majority opinion’s response to this contention is to note that other mitigating evidence was presented on the defendant’s behalf. Contrary to the majority’s view, however, the presentation of other evidence in mitigation does not alone conclude the matter. It is clear that counsel has a duty to investigate a defendant’s personal history and background and to introduce appropriate testimony in support of his client’s interests. (People v. Ruiz (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 1; People v. Caballero (1989), 126 Ill. 2d 248.) That counsel introduced some mitigating evidence does not mean that counsel acted properly in failing to introduce other evidence. The evidence now proposed by the defendant consists of the same mental health records he contends should have been submitted in support of his competency motion. As I have stated, the suggested evidence was remote in time and would have been of doubtful utility to the court in assessing the defendant’s mental condition. By the same token, defense counsel could well have believed that this information, already made known to the court through the testimony of the examining doctor, would have added little to the sentencing determination. Under Strickland, counsel’s strategic decisions are entitled to deference, and here, counsel was not required to introduce evidence merely because it existed. The defendant raises two further points in support of his contention that defense counsel was ineffective at the sentencing hearing. The defendant asserts that counsel failed to adequately prepare defense witness Ida Powe for the hearing because he did not talk to her until shortly before she was called to testify. Powe provided favorable testimony concerning the defendant’s character and reputation. The defendant has failed to point out, however, in what respect the value of Powe’s testimony was affected by counsel’s failure to talk to her at an earlier time. The defendant further contends that counsel made an inadequate argument at the conclusion of the second stage of the sentencing hearing. The defendant complains that counsel’s argument ignored the available evidence of his psychological history and focused instead on the reliability of the testimony of his involvement in the charged offense. The defendant had a lengthy criminal history, however, and he committed the murder charged here only two months after his parole from prison. Apparently believing that the defendant’s personal history provided little, if any, mitigation, counsel chose to argue to the sentencing judge that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt for this offense should not form the basis for a death sentence. Counsel’s strategic decision is entitled to deference, and the defendant has failed to show that a different closing argument would have produced a different result. In sum, although I agree with the court in its ultimate determination that the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial or in the sentencing hearing, I believe that those issues warrant more extensive treatment than that provided by the majority. For the reasons stated, I concur in the court’s judgment. JUSTICE FREEMAN joins in this special concurrence.