Court Opinion

ID: 9896316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:07:43.926277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:41.681486
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                    2023 IL App (4th) 230035-U
This Order was filed under                                                            FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                NO. 4-23-0035                         November 9, 2023
not precedent except in the                                                          Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed                                                    4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1).                IN THE APPELLATE COURT                             Court, IL

                                             OF ILLINOIS

                                         FOURTH DISTRICT

  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                          )     Appeal from the
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                                )     Circuit Court of
             v.                                                 )     Rock Island County
  CAMERON D. BALLARD,                                           )     No. 21CF862
             Defendant-Appellant.                               )
                                                                )     Honorable
                                                                )     Frank R. Fuhr,
                                                                )     Judge Presiding.

                   JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
                   Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

                                                ORDER

  ¶1       Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the evidence presented was sufficient
                 to prove defendant was the person who fired the shot that killed the victim and
                 (2) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by not filing a motion to
                 suppress a photo lineup identification.

  ¶2               Following a bench trial, defendant, Cameron D. Ballard, was convicted of first

  degree murder and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the State

  failed to prove he was the person who fired the shot that killed the victim and (2) trial counsel

  provided ineffective assistance by not filing a motion to suppress a photo lineup identification. For

  the reasons that follow, we affirm.

  ¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

  ¶4                                          A. Charges

  ¶5               In October 2021, the State charged defendant with one count of first degree murder
(720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2020)) and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm (id.

§ 24-1.2(a)(2)). The charges stemmed from a September 29, 2021, shooting that resulted in the

death of Christian Rex. Counsel was later appointed to represent defendant against these charges.

¶6                                         B. Bench Trial

¶7             In October 2022, the trial court conducted a three-day bench trial. The following is

gleaned from the evidence presented.

¶8             On the afternoon of September 29, 2021, an informal gathering of family and

friends occurred at a residential property in East Moline, Illinois. The property’s residents included

Dolphus Patterson, two of Dolphus’s daughters, Aretha and April Patterson, and one of Dolphus’s

granddaughters, Shanice Morrow. Included amongst those in attendance at the gathering were

Kimberly Patterson, the mother of Shanice, Timothy Matthews, the brother of Shanice and friend

of defendant, and defendant. Both Shanice and Timothy referred to defendant as their cousin. The

guests at the gathering consumed alcohol and cannabis.

¶9             Around 4 p.m., several attendees, including Timothy, Shanice, and defendant, left

the gathering and went to a nearby gas station. Surveillance footage from the gas station showed

defendant wearing long blue shorts, a black T-shirt, and what appeared to be a white T-shirt

wrapped around his head as a face mask. Defendant also had on white socks and flip-flops.

Surveillance footage from the gas station showed Timothy wearing blue jeans, a white T-shirt, and

tennis shoes. Both Shanice and Timothy testified defendant did not return with them to the

gathering after leaving the gas station. Surveillance footage from a home near the gathering

showed defendant walking alone towards the gathering after being at the gas station. Shanice

acknowledged later seeing defendant again at the gathering.

¶ 10           Around 5 p.m., LaCaela Williams and her boyfriend, Christian Rex, drove to the

                                                -2-
residential property in East Moline to visit with Aretha, whom LaCaela described as both an aunt

and a cousin. At the time, LaCaela was seven months pregnant with Christian’s child. LaCaela and

Christian approached the property in LaCaela’s vehicle through a back alley. LaCaela was driving,

and Christian was seated in the front passenger seat. The windows of the vehicle were down.

LaCaela testified she spoke with Dolphus, who indicated she could not park behind the property.

Moments later, Kimberly, Timothy, and Shanice approached in a vehicle. LaCaela described

Kimberly and Timothy as her cousins. Kimberly was driving the vehicle, Shanice was seated in

the front passenger seat, and Timothy was seated in the back seat. According to LaCaela, Shanice

began yelling at her. Shanice testified she addressed LaCaela only after LaCaela began yelling at

Kimberly. LaCaela and Shanice exited their respective vehicles and confronted each other outside

the driver’s side of LaCaela’s vehicle. Shanice testified she noticed Christian had a gun on his lap

when she was approaching LaCaela’s vehicle. Kimberly and Timothy went to the driver’s side of

LaCaela’s vehicle to split up LaCaela and Shanice. LaCaela, Shanice, and Timothy testified they

and Kimberly remained on the driver’s side of LaCaela’s vehicle throughout the confrontation.

¶ 11           At some point during the confrontation, LaCaela’s attention was drawn elsewhere.

She heard someone yelling and, after turning around, saw defendant “all the way back by the

house.” LaCaela did not know defendant’s name at the time. LaCaela testified she and defendant

“were on two different levels.” She “was familiar with [defendant], [n]ot socially, just somebody

who is always around because they have no place to go.” She later described defendant as a

“regular bum” and a “leech,” who “hangs around Aretha’s house drinking, smoking.” LaCaela

testified she also knew of defendant’s brother. LaCaela acknowledged she had never invited

defendant to her home. She also acknowledged she had never given him her address or asked

somebody else to do so.

                                               -3-
¶ 12           LaCaela testified defendant was “raising something” when he was yelling. It

appeared to LaCaela to be a gun in a plastic bag. She explained, “It looked like what I—it was in

like a bag, but the way the bag was formed it kind of looked like a short, rectangle with like a long

type of clip.” LaCaela told law enforcement the gun “looked like an Uzi or something.” LaCaela

testified defendant became “a nonrelevant factor;” he “wasn’t in the actual confrontation that was

going on, so I didn’t pay any more mind to him.”

¶ 13           At another point during the confrontation, a cup of ice left LaCaela’s hand. LaCaela

testified Shanice “smacked” the cup out of her hand, while Shanice and Timothy testified LaCaela

threw the cup at Shanice. LaCaela testified Kimberly succeeded in getting Shanice to back away

from LaCaela, which resulted in Timothy standing closest to her.

¶ 14           Christian, at some point, exited LaCaela’s vehicle. After doing so, he proceeded to

the front of LaCaela’s vehicle, where, according to LaCaela, he and Timothy were yelling at each

other. LaCaela testified Timothy was yelling at Christian that “he’s an outsider and stuff,” to which

she responded Christian was “the father of my kid, so we are all family[,] and this is just too much.”

While Timothy was yelling at Christian, LaCaela noticed Timothy had his hand on a gun in his

pocket. She never saw Timothy, who remained near her, remove the gun from his pocket. Both

Shanice and Timothy testified Christian was brandishing a gun and yelling that nobody was going

to “touch my baby mama.” Timothy testified Christian kept his gun directed towards his own chest.

LaCaela testified she did not see Christian with a gun or “doing a lot of bodily motions,” just

“yelling because he was mad at that fact that, you know, everybody was over there and I’m seven

months pregnant at the time with his child.” Timothy testified he did not realize Christian had a

gun until Kimberly said something. LaCaela testified Kimberly yelled out, “ ‘He has a banger, he

has a banger.’ ” Shanice then, according to LaCaela, screamed to defendant, “ ‘Come blow his ass

                                                -4-
down, cuz, come blow his ass down.’ ” Shanice acknowledged defendant was near the rear of

LaCaela’s vehicle at some point during the confrontation.

¶ 15            LaCaela testified, “The next time I saw [defendant] is when I am getting in the car

after Christian is in the car and I hear shots.” LaCaela clarified she “hear[d] a shot,” followed by

Christian stating, “ ‘Come on, Baby, he shot me, he shot me.’ ” At that point, LaCaela looked over

and saw defendant flee from the passenger side of her vehicle. LaCaela did not see anybody else

near Christian. Timothy and the others who were near the driver’s side of LaCaela’s vehicle also

fled after the shot. Both Shanice and Timothy testified they did not see who fired the shot. LaCaela

identified defendant in court as the person who shot Christian. LaCaela acknowledged she did not

see defendant fire the shot. On a diagram, LaCaela identified the locations of defendant and others

in relation to her vehicle.

¶ 16            After the shooting, LaCaela and Christian sped away in LaCaela’s vehicle. At about

6:20 p.m., they encountered a police officer, Officer Thomas Walter. After a brief traffic stop,

Officer Walter followed LaCaela and Christian to a nearby hospital. Officer Walter described

LaCaela as hysterical. Upon arriving at the hospital, Officer Walter assisted LaCaela with

removing Christian, who was unconscious, from LaCaela’s vehicle. When doing so, Officer

Walter observed a handgun next to Christian, which Officer Walter secured. Officer Walter spoke

with LaCaela, but LaCaela was uncooperative. Officer Walter described LaCaela as “[s]till

hysterical, crying, wasn’t sure what to do.” LaCaela acknowledged telling Officer Walter that she

“didn’t see what happened.” LaCaela testified she was too worried about the status of Christian to

speak with law enforcement. LaCaela’s vehicle was secured for inspection.

¶ 17            While at the hospital, LaCaela called her mother, LaTayna Morris, who then came

to the hospital. LaTayna described her daughter as hysterical. LaTayna explained she repeatedly

                                               -5-
told LaCaela to calm down so she could understand her. LaCaela testified she told her mother “a

little bit of what happened,” not “everything.” LaTayna testified LaCaela “told me everything that

had happened that led up to the shooting and everything.” When asked if she told her mother that

Timothy shot Christian, LaCaela testified she did not. To the extent her mother indicated

otherwise, LaCaela believed LaTayna “was confused by the words I was speaking to her.”

LaTayna testified LaCaela did not tell her that Timothy shot Christian. LaTayna later

acknowledged having reported to law enforcement that LaCaela “said it was TJ [(Timothy)].”

LaTayna explained:

                      “Well, like I said, that night, you know, she was just so

               frantic when she was telling me about the story and stuff, but she

               was just like, ‘It wasn’t TJ.’ Because I was like, ‘It was TJ?’ ‘No,

               Mom, it wasn’t TJ.’ It was this dude that was with him.”

¶ 18           At another point while at the hospital, LaCaela was approached by Detective John

VanHyning. LaCaela, who still did not know Christian’s status, was largely uncooperative.

LaCaela testified she was too worried about Christian to cooperate. LaCaela told the detective that

she could not tell him who shot Christian because she was afraid and “[t]hey know where I live.”

LaCaela acknowledged defendant did not know where she lived but indicated it was “a small town”

and “not really hard for you to find where people live if you are looking for them.” LaCaela also

told the detective that it was going “to fall back on me because I was there.” LaCaela did not tell

the detective that she did not know defendant’s name. LaCaela testified she did not convey this

detail “[b]ecause I had a lot of emotions going on that night,” “was seven months pregnant at the

time,” and “just witnessed somebody that I loved being shot.” Detective VanHyning asked

LaCaela for a description of the shooter. Detective VanHyning testified LaCaela described the

                                               -6-
shooter as a light-skinned male who was larger in build. He did not recall her describing the shooter

as “Mexican.” LaCaela, when asked if she described the shooter as a “fat Mexican dude,” indicated

she “could have said [that] for [Detective VanHyning] to get out of my face” but did not recall

doing so. After listening to a portion of a recording taken from Detective VanHyning’s body

camera, LaCaela asserted she did not describe the shooter as a “fat Mexican dude.” Detective

VanHyning testified LaCaela refused to return to the crime scene with him because she believed

“they would know that she was in the car.” Detective VanHyning also testified LaCaela indicated

the shooter may be related to her, possibly a cousin. Eventually, LaCaela learned Christian had

succumbed to his injuries.

¶ 19           Later that evening, LaCaela, along with her mother, went to the police station and

spoke with detectives. LaCaela described her mother as her “safe zone,” a person who she looked

to “for guidance.” LaCaela explained: “I was asking her what I should do, just wanting somebody

to tell me what to do. My state of mind wasn’t right.” LaCaela, after speaking with her mother,

decided to cooperate with law enforcement.

¶ 20           Detective Travis Staes, one of the detectives who met with LaCaela at the police

station, described LaCaela as follows: “She was all over the place. She was crying. She was

screaming. She was, you know, squatting down and putting her hands in her eyes, like, taking deep

breaths trying to catch her breath. She was very animated.” Because Detective Staes and his partner

believed LaCaela “needed the emotional support,” they allowed LaCaela’s mother to be present

during LaCaela’s interview. The interview commenced approximately two hours after the

shooting.

¶ 21           During the interview, LaCaela indicated she did not know the name of the person

who shot Christian. She indicated the shooter was a family friend who was always around. She

                                                -7-
described the shooter’s physical appearance, specifically that he was fat and light-skinned. While

both Detective Staes and LaCaela testified that LaCaela had described the shooter as light-skinned,

LaCaela’s mother testified LaCaela described the shooter as dark-skinned. During a photo lineup,

LaCaela identified a photo of Timothy. LaCaela, when asked how she would have described

Timothy if he was the shooter, testified, “I just would have said it was my cousin TJ.” Detective

Staes did not recall LaCaela mentioning something about a “banger.”

¶ 22           During a break in the interview, when it was only LaCaela and her mother in the

interview room, LaCaela and her mother discussed the identity of the shooter. LaCaela testified

she

               “described what [the shooter] looked like [and] what his brother

               looked like to my mom at the police station[,] and she knows their

               mother, so she was able to pull him up on her Facebook and show

               me the picture and that is when I identified [defendant] as the one

               who shot Christian.”

LaTayna testified LaCaela indicated the shooter had “the brother that walks with the limp.”

LaTayna also testified she talked to her sister by telephone about the description provided by

LaCaela and then pulled up a photo on Facebook, which she showed to LaCaela. The photo

depicted defendant.

¶ 23           After the break, Detective Staes presented LaCaela with another photo lineup. In

the lineup, LaCaela identified a photo of defendant as the shooter. Detective Staes testified he did

not learn of the interaction between LaCaela and LaCaela’s mother until he was reviewing video

footage of the interview. Detective Staes acknowledged seeing a person’s photo before a photo

lineup could taint the photo lineup process. He also acknowledged he had never allowed someone

                                               -8-
to view a photo prior to a photo lineup.

¶ 24           LaCaela acknowledged telling law enforcement that defendant must have had a

second gun because she heard only one shot and believed the weapon defendant possessed fired

multiple shots at a time.

¶ 25           Law enforcement, with the assistance of a K-9 unit, investigated the scene of the

shooting on the evening of September 29, 2021. No evidence of the shooting, such as a cartridge

case, was discovered.

¶ 26           On October 1, 2021, LaCaela appeared for a second interview at the police station.

During the interview, LaCaela provided a description of the clothing worn by the shooter. She

indicated the shooter was wearing blue jeans, a white T-shirt, and “Tims,” a boot-type shoe.

LaCaela testified she meant jean shorts and not jean pants when she provided the description.

LaCaela also testified she would recognize defendant regardless of his clothing. She testified he

was larger, light-skinned, and had what she described as “hamburger hair” and “a mark on his

face.” She acknowledged she had not previously provided the latter details.

¶ 27           Dr. Mark Peters, a qualified expert in forensic pathology, performed an autopsy of

Christian’s body. Dr. Peters discovered a single gunshot entrance wound on the right side of

Christian’s back. The wound had a one-and-a-half-inch area of surrounding gun powder stippling.

Dr. Peters testified the stippling was indicative of a firearm having been discharged within close

range. The bullet tracked back to front and right to left. Specifically, it “enters right chest through

right posterior rib 8, perforates the lower lobe of right lung, thoracic vertebra T11 with laceration

of spinal cord and aorta, and penetrates lower lobe of left lung.” Multiple copper and lead

fragments were recovered from inside the body. Dr. Peters attributed Christian’s death to a gunshot

wound of the back involving the chest. Dr. Peters did not have an opinion as to the angle of the

                                                 -9-
firearm at the time of the shooting.

¶ 28           Curt Dykstra, a crime scene investigator, processed LaCaela’s vehicle. Dykstra

discovered blood on the front passenger seat. He did not discover blood on the outside of the

vehicle. Dykstra also discovered a spent .223-caliber cartridge case near the front passenger seat.

Dykstra, on cross-examination, testified the cartridge case could have been used in “a handgun or

a rifle.” He also testified the case typically used intact as opposed to fragmented rounds.

¶ 29           Michael Griffin, a detective of 16 years who had investigated or handled

approximately 500 to 700 firearms over the course of his career, identified the gun found in

LaCaela’s vehicle as a 9-millimeter handgun. Detective Griffin testified the 9-millimeter handgun

could not have used the .223 cartridge case found in LaCaela’s vehicle. Detective Griffin indicated

the .223 cartridge case would be used with “[a]n AR platform style weapon, a .223, either an AR

pistol or an AR rifle.” He described an “AR pistol” as “a short-barreled rifle.”

¶ 30           On November 26, 2021, defendant placed a phone call from the county jail. During

the call, defendant states he (1) was going to tell the truth and hope for “some type of leniency,”

(2) was “kind of hazy and shit because I was fucked up,” and (3) does not want to look like a “rat”

and all he “ever heard was snitches get stitches.” Defendant also indicated, in response to

statements made by the other person on the phone call, he was defending himself and was not a

stone-cold killer.

¶ 31           The investigation into the shooting also uncovered the following: (1) a person

whose identity could not be confirmed by law enforcement was seen walking towards the gathering

shortly before the shooting, (2) a fingerprint lifted from the magazine of the handgun discovered

in LaCaela’s vehicle matched a fingerprint of Christian, (3) Christian had in his possession a digital

scale, empty plastic baggies, and 22 grams of a controlled substance or a look-alike substance,

                                                - 10 -
(4) Christian had tetrahydrocannabinol and benzoylecgonine in his system, and (5) a cell phone

associated with defendant had no evidence implicating him in the shooting.

¶ 32           The trial court, after its consideration of the evidence and the closing arguments,

found the State had proven defendant guilty of both first degree murder and aggravated discharge

of a firearm. The court specifically stated:

                       “I’ve considered the evidence and exhibits that have been

               introduced into evidence through the last three days, and I’ve

               considered the arguments of counsel. There is no doubt that

               someone shot and killed Christian Rex on September [29], 2021. A

               single shot was fired according to the testimony. A single bullet

               casing was found inside the car where Mr. Rex was shot. A K-9

               [unit] searched the area. There were no other bullet casings found

               either in the car or the vicinity.

                       The only person placed on the passenger’s side of that car is

               [defendant]. Placed close enough that discharge of a firearm left

               1-1/2 inch stippling marks on the skin of the decedent through his

               T-shirt. [Dr. Peters] testified that was close range. I would say that

               was extremely close range. [Defendant], it’s my conclusion that the

               State has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and I find

               you guilty of both counts.”

¶ 33                                  C. Posttrial Proceedings

¶ 34           In November 2022, defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing, amongst other

things, the State failed to prove he was the person who fired the shot that killed Christian. At a

                                                    - 11 -
December 2022 hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, merged its findings of guilt,

and sentenced defendant to 50 years’ imprisonment. Defendant later filed a motion to reconsider

his sentence and a renewed motion for a new trial, both of which the court denied.

¶ 35           This appeal followed.

¶ 36                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 37           On appeal, defendant argues (1) the State failed to prove he was the person who

fired the shot that killed Christian and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not filing

a motion to suppress the photo lineup identification. The State disagrees with each of defendant’s

arguments.

¶ 38                      A. Challenge to the Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 39           Defendant argues the State failed to prove he was the person who fired the shot that

killed Christian. Specifically, defendant asserts LaCaela’s unreliable identification of him as the

possible shooter is, without more, insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was

the shooter.

¶ 40           When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the question

for this court is “whether, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt.” People v. Brand, 2021 IL 125945, ¶ 58, 190 N.E.3d 149. “A criminal conviction will not

be reversed for insufficient evidence unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or

unsatisfactory that it justifies a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Gray, 2017

IL 120958, ¶ 35, 91 N.E.3d 876.

¶ 41           “The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the identity

of the person who committed the crime.” People v. Slim, 127 Ill. 2d 302, 307, 537 N.E.2d 317,

                                                 - 12 -
319 (1989). The offender’s identity may be established by testimony of a single eyewitness, so

long as the witness viewed the accused under circumstances permitting a positive identification.

Id. at 307. The offender’s identity may also be established by circumstantial evidence, so long as

it leads to “a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the crime.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Fletcher, 72 Ill. 2d 66, 71, 377 N.E.2d 809, 812

(1978).

¶ 42           In this case, the trial court, in support of its determination that defendant was the

person who fired the shot that killed Christian, found defendant was the only person placed on the

passenger’s side of LaCaela’s vehicle. That is, the court found LaCaela’s identification of

defendant as the person she saw on the passenger’s side of her vehicle immediately after the

shooting was reliable. Defendant, on appeal, challenges this finding.

¶ 43           As an initial matter, defendant invites this court to view the State’s argument

concerning the reliability of LaCaela’s identification as forfeited. We decline defendant’s

invitation. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, we find the State sufficiently addressed the reliability

of LaCaela’s identification. Moreover, forfeiture is a limitation on the parties and not this court,

and this court may overlook forfeiture when necessary to obtain a just result. People v. Raney,

2014 IL App (4th) 130551, ¶ 33, 8 N.E.3d 633.

¶ 44           The trier of fact is responsible for assessing the reliability of identification evidence

in light of all the facts and circumstances, including (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the

offender at the time of the offense, (2) the witness’s degree of attention at the time of the offense,

(3) the accuracy of any previous description of the offender by the witness, (4) the degree of

certainty shown by the witness in identifying the offender, and (5) the length of time between the

offense and the identification. See People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567, 870 N.E.2d 403, 412

                                                - 13 -
(2007); see also Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.15 and 3.15A (approved June

28, 2017). Another consideration for the trier of fact when assessing the reliability of identification

evidence is whether the witness had any acquaintance with the offender prior to the offense. People

v. McTush, 81 Ill. 2d 513, 521, 410 N.E.2d 861, 865 (1980).

¶ 45           As to the first and second factors, defendant asserts LaCaela did not have a

sufficient opportunity to view the offender and her degree of attention on the offender was

compromised by the level of stress that the confrontation and shooting created. We disagree. While

LaCaela was enmeshed in a heated confrontation with family members, her attention was drawn

elsewhere on two different occasions. On the first occasion, LaCaela noticed defendant back by

the house yelling and raising something that appeared to be a gun in a plastic bag. LaCaela’s

attention then returned to the confrontation—“[defendant] wasn’t in the actual confrontation that

was going on, so I didn’t pay any more mind to him.” Then, after the shooting, LaCaela’s attention

was again drawn to defendant. LaCaela, who was on the driver’s side of her vehicle, looked over

and saw defendant, alone, flee from the passenger’s side of her vehicle. Under these circumstances,

it could be reasonably found LaCaela had a sufficient opportunity to view the offender and her

degree of attention on the offender was not compromised. See People v. Benson, 266 Ill. App. 3d

994, 1005, 641 N.E.2d 617, 626 (1994) (“The conditions need not be perfect and the observation

need not be prolonged.”).

¶ 46           With respect to the third factor, defendant asserts LaCaela’s prior description of the

offender weighs against reliability. We disagree. While LaTayna believed LaCaela had described

the offender as dark-skinned, both LaCaela and Detective VanHyning testified LaCaela described

the offender as light-skinned. LaCaela and Detective VanHyning also testified LaCaela described

the offender as fat or having a larger build. These descriptions are, undisputedly, consistent with

                                                - 14 -
defendant’s appearance. While LaCaela provided a description of the offender’s clothing which

was largely inconsistent with the clothing defendant was wearing at the gas station, that description

was not given until days after the shooting, and LaCaela testified she would have recognized

defendant regardless of his clothing. Under these circumstances, it could be reasonably found

LaCaelas’s prior description of the offender weighed in favor of reliability or, alternatively,

neutrally.

¶ 47           As to the fourth and fifth factors, defendant asserts LaCaela’s level of certainty in

the identifications at the police station and in court and the length of time between the offense and

the identifications were compromised by the suggestiveness of the photo lineup. We disagree. As

defendant concedes, LaCaela voiced no uncertainty about her identification of the offender at the

photo lineup or at trial, and the photo lineup occurred within hours of the shooting. The only

uncertainty voiced by LaCaela concerned the offender’s name. LaCaela indicated to law

enforcement the offender was a family friend who was always around. She also provided a

description of the offender’s physical appearance. Under these circumstances, it could be

reasonably found the level of certainty in the identifications and the length of time between the

offense and the identifications were not compromised by LaCaela being shown a photo of

defendant shortly before the lineup and, therefore, weighed in favor of reliability.

¶ 48           Regarding whether the witness had any acquaintance with the offender prior to the

offense, defendant asserts LaCaela’s familiarity with him prior to the offense should be weighed

neutrally. We disagree. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we find LaCaela’s testimony

concerning her familiarity with defendant was largely consistent. LaCaela testified she “was

familiar with [defendant], [n]ot socially, just somebody who is always around because they have

no place to go.” LaCaela testified she also knew of defendant’s brother. While LaCaela did not

                                               - 15 -
initially know defendant’s name, she had a sufficient degree of familiarity with him by which she

could later identify him. Under these circumstances, it could be reasonably found LaCaela’s

acquaintance with the offender prior to the offense weighed in favor of reliability.

¶ 49           After reviewing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the identification

evidence in this case, we find the trial court, as the trier of fact, could reasonably find LaCaela’s

identification of defendant as the person she saw on the passenger’s side of her vehicle

immediately after the shooting was reliable.

¶ 50           The trial court also, in support of its determination that defendant was the person

who fired the shot that killed Christian, found Christian was shot within close range. The evidence

supports the court’s finding. See People v. Swenson, 2020 IL 124688, ¶ 36, 181 N.E.3d 116 (“The

trier of fact determines the credibility of the witnesses, decides what weight to give their testimony,

resolves conflicts in the evidence, and draws reasonable inferences from that evidence.”). As the

court highlighted, the gunshot wound to Christian’s back had a one-and-a-half-inch area of

surrounding stippling which, according to Dr. Peters, was indicative of a firearm having been

discharged within close range. In addition, the only cartridge case found following searches of the

crime scene and LaCaela’s vehicle was discovered inside LaCaela’s vehicle. That discovery, as

the court highlighted, provided further support for its finding that Christian was shot within close

range, even if the firearm which discharged the bullet was never recovered.

¶ 51           Finally, we find additional evidence not explicitly addressed by the trial court

supports its determination that defendant was the person who fired the shot that killed Christian.

See People v. Curtis, 296 Ill. App. 3d 991, 1000, 696 N.E.2d 372, 379 (1998) (“If the record

contains facts which support an affirmance of the trial court’s finding, the reviewing court may

take those facts into account even if the trial court did not state it explicitly relied upon them.”).

                                                - 16 -
First and foremost, we find the statements made during the phone call from the county jail

implicate defendant in the shooting. Furthermore, we find Shanice’s identification of defendant as

being near the rear of LaCaela’s vehicle during the confrontation provides support for LaCaela’s

identification of defendant as being near the passenger’s side of her vehicle immediately after the

shooting.

¶ 52            In sum, we find the circumstantial evidence presented in this case is such that it can

be reasonably concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the person who fired the

shot that killed Christian.

¶ 53                     B. Challenge to the Performance of Trial Counsel

¶ 54            Defendant argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not filing a

motion to suppress the photo lineup identification. Specifically, defendant asserts counsel should

have sought to suppress the photo lineup identification on the basis the lineup procedure was

unnecessarily suggestive and the identification was not otherwise reliable.

¶ 55            “Every defendant has a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel

under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Illinois.”

People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36, 987 N.E.2d 767. Claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel are analyzed under the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687 (1984). Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance,

a defendant must show both: (1) “counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under

prevailing professional norms” and (2) “there is a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Id. (quoting

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

                                                - 17 -
¶ 56            Where a claim of ineffective assistance is based on a failure to file a motion to

suppress, the defendant, in order to establish the requisite prejudice, “must demonstrate that the

unargued suppression motion is meritorious, and that a reasonable probability exists that the trial

outcome would have been different had the evidence been suppressed.” People v. Henderson, 2013

IL 114040, ¶ 15, 989 N.E.2d 192. In this case, defendant has not demonstrated the unargued

suppression motion would have been meritorious.

¶ 57            “Criminal defendants have a due process right to be free from identification

procedures that are unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, ¶ 32, 170 N.E.3d

1014. “Illinois courts use a two-part test to determine whether an identification procedure comports

with due process.” People v. Jones, 2017 IL App (1st) 143766, ¶ 28, 81 N.E.3d 48. First, the

defendant must show the identification procedure used was unnecessarily suggestive. Id. Second,

if the defendant makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate the

identification is otherwise reliable. Id. With respect to the first part of the test, due process requires

suppression of an identification only where the suggestive circumstances of the identification

procedure were the result of improper conduct by the police. People v. Gavin, 2022 IL App (4th)

200314, ¶ 55, 214 N.E.3d 250; see Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 245, 132 S. Ct. 716,

728 (2012) (“The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state

conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability

before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.”).

¶ 58            Defendant asserts the lineup procedure used in this case was unnecessarily

suggestive because of LaCaela’s mother showing LaCaela a picture of him moments before the

lineup. The action of LaCaela’s mother, however, was independent of any improper conduct by

                                                  - 18 -
the police. Indeed, Detective Staes testified he did not learn of the interaction between LaCaela

and LaCaela’s mother until he was reviewing video footage of the interview. Moreover, as

previously indicated, the facts and circumstances surrounding the identification demonstrate the

identification was reliable regardless of the action of LaCaela’s mother. Accordingly, it would

have been futile to file a motion to suppress on the basis the lineup procedure was unnecessarily

suggestive and the identification was not otherwise reliable. Counsel is not ineffective for not filing

a futile motion. People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 38, 202 N.E.3d 890.

¶ 59            In so finding, we note defendant, for the first time in his reply brief, presents an

alternative basis upon which he asserts counsel should have sought to suppress the photo lineup

identification: the identification was “more prejudicial than probative.” Because defendant did not

raise this point in his initial brief, it is forfeited. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points

not argued are forfeited and shall not be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition

for rehearing.”). Forfeiture aside, filing a motion to suppress on this basis would also have been

futile given the facts and circumstances surrounding the identification demonstrate the

identification was reliable regardless of the action of LaCaela’s mother.

¶ 60                                       III. CONCLUSION

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

¶ 62            Affirmed.

                                                   - 19 -