Court Opinion

ID: 9841453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 15:06:24.937984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:34.071965
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221304

                                           No. 1-22-1304

                                  Order filed September 22, 2023

                                                                                   FIFTH DIVISION

                                           IN THE
                                APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                  FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                   )      Appeal from the
                                                         )      Circuit Court of
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                             )      Cook County.
                                                         )
  v.                                                     )      No. 16 CR 2711 01
                                                         )
  DARRELL PICKETT,                                       )      Honorable
                                                         )      James M. Obbish,
         Defendant-Appellant.                            )      Judge presiding.

       PRESIDING JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
       Justice Lyle and Justice Navarro concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                             OPINION

¶1     Defendant Darrell Pickett appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial.

Pickett raises the following issue: did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying his motion for

a new trial because his trial counsel’s failure to complete his minimum continuing legal education

requirement rendered counsel constitutionally ineffective? For the reasons stated below, we find

no abuse of discretion and affirm.

¶2     Pickett was charged with attempted first degree murder for his role in the shooting of Willie

Grant on the night of October 29, 2015. Pickett retained an attorney to represent him. Following a

bench trial that lasted from March 9, 2020, to May 21, 2021, due to pandemic-related delays, the
No. 1-22-1304

trial court found Pickett guilty. Pickett’s trial counsel later informed the trial court that Pickett

wished to retain new counsel for the post-trial proceedings. Trial counsel then requested a

continuance so that Pickett could find a new attorney. The trial court denied trial counsel’s request

and required him to argue the motion for new trial, stating that if Pickett retained new counsel by

the next court date, the court would allow the new counsel to raise new issues in a post-trial motion.

The trial court then denied Pickett’s motion for a new trial and continued the case.

¶3      On a later court date, another attorney filed an appearance as Pickett’s new counsel.

Pickett’s trial counsel withdrew, and the court acknowledged that there may have been an issue

with trial counsel’s authorization to practice law. On the next court date, counsel filed a motion

for new trial. The motion alleged that Pickett was entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel

was not authorized to practice law over the course of the trial and that this amounted to per se

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Pickett’s sixth amendment rights. The parties do

not dispute that on March 5, 2020, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

removed Pickett’s trial counsel from its master roll of attorneys authorized to practice law because

he had failed to comply with MCLE requirements. The ARDC did not readmit Pickett’s trial

counsel to active status until October 8, 2021, after he completed the MCLE requirements.

¶4      The trial court denied Pickett’s motion for a new trial, reasoning that his trial counsel’s loss

of active status for failing to comply with MCLE requirements did not deprive Pickett of his sixth

amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The court then sentenced Pickett to 35 years

imprisonment, followed by 3 years mandatory supervised release. This timely appeal followed.

See Ill. S. Ct. R. 606 (eff. July 1, 2017).

                                                 -2-
No. 1-22-1304

¶5     Pickett asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial

because during the trial, his trial counsel was removed from the master roll of attorneys because

he failed to complete his MCLE requirements. Pickett contends that this violated his sixth

amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. We review a trial court’s denial of a motion

for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 343 (2000).

¶6     The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to effective

assistance of counsel (U.S. Const., amend. VI), which entitles criminal defendants to legal

representation of a reasonably competent quality. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688

(1984). Typically, when a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, Strickland requires

a showing that defense counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that the performance

prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Id. at 687.

¶7     Pickett does not allege that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient. See id. Rather,

he claims that his trial counsel’s actions presented a conflict of interest. An actual conflict of

interest exists when the defendant shows “ ‘some specific defect in his counsel’s strategy[,] tactics,

or decision making attributable to the conflict.’ ” People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356, 376 (2010)

(quoting People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (1988)). Pickett argues that his trial counsel’s

unwillingness to disclose his unauthorized status to the trial court prevented him from obtaining

new counsel. Yet, the record indicates that once Pickett informed his trial counsel that he wished

to proceed with a different attorney, his trial counsel endeavored to accomplish that end. Even if

trial counsel had disclosed his unauthorized status earlier, the result for Pickett would have been

the same: he would have had until the next court date to retain new counsel.

                                                 -3-
No. 1-22-1304

¶8     Further, Pickett offered no evidence that his trial counsel prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. The trial court described Pickett’s trial counsel as a more than an

effective advocate for his client. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have no basis to

disrupt the trial court’s judgment.

¶9     Pickett argues that he suffered a per se violation of his sixth amendment right, such that

prejudice must be presumed because he was represented by an individual suspended from the

practice of law for reasons “relating to [a] lack of legal ability or moral character.” People v.

Gamino, 2012 IL App (1st) 101077, ¶ 22; United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 660 (1984)

(finding that a “presumption of prejudice is appropriate without inquiry into the actual conduct of

the trial” when there has been a denial of counsel). A per se violation occurs when the defendant

is not represented by “counsel,” “a duly licensed and qualified lawyer.” (Emphasis added and

internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Denzel W., 237 Ill. 2d 285, 296 (2010).

¶ 10   But Pickett’s trial counsel was not suspended due to a “lack of legal ability or moral

character.” Gamino, 2012 IL App (1st) 101077, ¶ 22. He was a licensed and qualified attorney at

the time of trial, whose license had lapsed due to his failure to complete MCLE. That

noncompliance amounts to a technical defect. “A change in an individual’s ARDC registration

status has no relation to, and does not call into question, that person’s skill, fitness or competency

to practice law, which is assured through his or her initially meeting the requirements to obtain—

and thereafter to retain—a valid license to practice law.” (Emphasis in original.) Applebaum v.

Rush University Medical Center, 231 Ill. 2d 429, 441 (2008).

                                                 -4-
No. 1-22-1304

Such an administrative or technical defect in an attorney’s license status, such as suspension for

nonpayment of registration fees, does not amount to a per se violation of the defendant’s sixth

amendment rights. People v. Brigham, 151 Ill. 2d 58, 70-71 (1992).

¶ 11    Illinois attorneys must comply with MCLE requirements in order to remain on the ARDC’s

master roll of authorized attorneys. Ill. S. Ct. R. 796(e) (eff. Mar. 1, 2019). These requirements

exist to assure that attorneys “remain current regarding the requisite knowledge and skills

necessary to fulfill the professional responsibilities and obligations of their respective practices.”

Ill. S. Ct. Rs. Art. VII, pt. C, Preamble. The goal of CLE programming is to provide attorneys with

“opportunities to enhance both [their] professional and personal development.” 1

¶ 12    Failure to comply with MCLE does not mean that an attorney is incapable of providing

quality representation to clients. Indeed, MCLE noncompliance could merely consist of a failure

to report compliance by submitting the required certificate. Ill. S. Ct. R. 796(a) (eff. Mar. 1, 2019).

In addition, attorneys are permitted to earn CLE credits in courses that are unrelated to their

practice areas. Compliance with MCLE requirements does not guarantee that an attorney will stay

abreast of developments in his own field. Our errant trial counsel here could have satisfied his

MCLE requirement in part by taking such approved courses as “War Crimes in the Star Wars

Universe” or “The Curious Lawyer: Sex, Videotapes, and Lies,” and yet it could hardly be argued

that mastery of these courses would have made him more effective in our defendant’s trial. 2 For

        1
           ARDC of the S. Ct. of Ill., Continuing Legal Education, https://pathlms.iardc.org/courses# (last
visited September 11, 2023) [https://perma.cc/278H-UG2X].
         2
           MCLE Board of the S. Ct. of Ill., Course Detail for War Crimes in the Star Wars
Universe, https://pcam.mcleboard.org/publicui/Courses/courseDetail.aspx?id=555187 (last visited
September 11, 2023) [https://perma.cc/WP3Q-RCAG]; MCLE Board of the S. Ct. of Ill., Course Detail
for The Curious Lawyer: Sex, Videotapes, and Lies,
https://pcam.mcleboard.org/publicui/Courses/courseDetail.aspx?id=567238 (last visited September 11,
2023) [https://perma.cc/XR2F-R2FY].

                                                   -5-
No. 1-22-1304

all these reasons (and others), admission to the bar is the proper indicator of an attorney’s fitness

to practice law—not completion of MCLE requirements. Cf. Applebaum, 231 Ill. 2d at 441;

Brigham, 151 Ill. 2d at 70.

¶ 13   Finally, Pickett argues that his claim should be analogized to the constitutional deprivation

of counsel of choice, where the requirement to show prejudice from the deprivation has been

excused. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148 (2006). This argument is of no

moment. A showing of prejudice is excused only because the “[d]eprivation of the right is

‘complete’ when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he

wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received.” Id. However, in an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, the requirement that a defendant show prejudice “arises from the very

nature of the specific element of the right to counsel at issue there—effective (not mistake-free)

representation.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 147.

¶ 14   The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

¶ 15   Affirmed.

                                                -6-
No. 1-22-1304

                         People v. Pickett, 2023 IL App (1st) 221304

Decision Under Review:        Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 16-CR-2711(01);
                              the Hon. James M. Obbish, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                     James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Kieran M. Wiberg, of State
for                           Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                     Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham,
for                           Brian K. Hodes, and Leslie Billings, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of
Appellee:                     counsel), for the People.

                                             -7-