Court Opinion

ID: 9861360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:55:37.32056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:15.284948
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: The majority holds that defense counsel’s performance was deficient because he failed to surrender defendant in exoneration of his recognizance bond, which would have resulted in an additional 302 days of credit on his Will County sentence. I disagree. Defendant’s contention is simply unsupported by the record. To establish that counsel was ineffective, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged inaction may have been the product of competent trial strategy. People v. Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d 401, 411, 727 N.E.2d 362, 360 (2000). Here, the record is silent as to defendant’s or counsel’s position regarding whether or not to seek exoneration of the bond. More importantly, the record is silent as to whether or not defendant or his counsel expected him to be released from Cook County custody. I cannot agree that it is, ipso facto, ineffective assistance of counsel for an attorney not to surrender a bond under this type of situation. Defendant’s claim would be more appropriately addressed in a post-conviction proceeding, where a sufficient record could be developed. See People v. Parker, 344 Ill. App. 3d 728, 737, 801 N.E.2d 162, 168-69 (2003). For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.