Court Opinion

ID: 9391302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 20:04:28.026724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.659197
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
            in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                           2023 IL App (3d) 190296-U

                                   Order filed May 1, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                     IN THE

                                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                               THIRD DISTRICT

                                                       2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                          )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                           )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                                          )       Will County, Illinois.
              Plaintiff-Appellee,                         )
                                                          )       Appeal No. 3-19-0296
              v.                                          )       Circuit No. 08-CF-734
                                                          )
      TYRELL JACKSON,                                     )
                                                          )       Honorable David M. Carlson,
              Defendant-Appellant.                        )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

              JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court.
              Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment.
              Justice McDade dissented.

                                                    ORDER

¶1          Held: The circuit court properly dismissed defendant’s postconviction petition at
                  the first stage.

¶2          Defendant, Tyrell Jackson, appeals the dismissal of his postconviction petition.

     Defendant argues the Will County circuit court erred in dismissing his petition as it presented the

     gist of claims of: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, and (2) a
     Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) violation where the State manipulated and/or withheld

     exculpatory cell phone records. We affirm.

¶3                                          I. BACKGROUND

¶4          The State charged defendant and four codefendants with first degree murder (720 ILCS

     5/9-1(a)(2), (3) (West 2008)), home invasion (id. § 12-11(a)(3), (5)), and armed robbery (id.

     § 18-2(a)).

¶5          At the conclusion of a stipulated bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of first

     degree murder and sentenced him to 70 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, this court reversed

     defendant’s conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial. People v. Jackson, 2012 IL App

     (3d) 100693-U.

¶6          On remand, public defenders Edward Jaquays and Gabriel Guzman represented

     defendant. On February 11, 2014, Guzman and State’s Attorney Steve Platek discussed that

     footprint impressions found near the scene did not match defendant’s shoes. Defendant’s

     brother-in-law, Darren Jackson, overheard this conversation. Later that same day, defendant pled

     guilty to first degree murder.

¶7          On February 28, 2014, defendant filed, as a self-represented litigant, a motion to

     withdraw his guilty plea, wherein he argued various allegations of ineffective assistance of

     counsel. At the motion hearing, the court received evidence and argument on defendant’s request

     to withdraw his guilty plea and conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry into defendant’s claims

     of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant stated that Darren overheard Platek tell Guzman

     about two new pieces of evidence: footprint impressions and cell phone records that placed

     defendant miles away from the location of the crime when it took place. Further, defendant

                                                      2
       claimed a police report detailing an investigation of defendant’s cell phone records placed him

       miles away from the crime.

¶8             Jaquays informed the court that he discussed with defendant that his firm had hired

       former State’s Attorney Nicole Moore. Moore had previously participated in a motion to

       suppress proceeding as a State’s attorney in the instant case. Jaquays explained to defendant that

       he was entitled to a different attorney. He also told defendant that unless defendant asked, he

       would not initiate plea agreements. Defendant asked Jaquays to approach the State with a request

       for a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. The State rejected that request. Jaquays

       thought the best sentence defendant could expect was 25 years’ imprisonment. He was adamant

       that defendant asked him to approach the State with an offer to plead guilty in exchange for a

       sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. Jaquays shared his impressions of the case with defendant

       regarding certain harmful evidence. Jaquays informed defendant numerous times that this was

       not a case of physical evidence. He explained to defendant that his choices were most likely 25

       years or life in prison if he was found guilty after a trial.

¶9             Guzman confirmed Platek told him about the footprint impressions but denied conversing

       about any new cell phone evidence. State’s Attorney Michael Knick noted the State tendered all

       discovery relating to cell phone records prior to the appellate court’s order remanding

       defendant’s initial conviction, and the only discovery tendered after remand related to the

       gunshot residue and footprint impressions. Jaquays confirmed he received the cell phone records.

       The police report stated that around the time of the offenses, defendant’s cell phone was within a

       half mile radius of a cell site located near the victims’ residence.

¶ 10           The circuit court denied defendant’s motion. On appeal, defendant argued the circuit

       court erred in allowing the State to argue against his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

                                                           3
       during the preliminary Krankel inquiry. This court reversed and remanded for a new preliminary

       Krankel inquiry. People v. Jackson, No. 3-14-0417 (2016) (unpublished minute order).

¶ 11          On remand, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea as a self-represented

       litigant. Attached to the motion was an affidavit from defendant’s mother, April McDowell

       averred:

                             “On the morning of February 11, 2014 at about 10:40, I[,] 2 of my sons

                      and again my grandson arrived at the Will County Court house. Upon reaching

                      the court room 405, I noticed that [defendant’s] baby uncle Darren Jackson was

                      there, seated on the left side of the courtroom behind the state’s attorney table.

                             He immediately motioned for me to step into the corridor so he can tell me

                      something. Upon reaching the hall he told me that he overheard the State’s

                      Attorney Steve Platek and one of [defendant’s] attorneys’ Gabrielle Guzman,

                      speaking about the trial, and that he had been listening all day to the attorneys as

                      they came in and left the court room talking about the trial that was about to go

                      on. Once he heard them talking he really paid attention to the conversation,

                      because he knew it was about [defendant]. He told me that the State’s Attorney

                      informed Mr. Guzman that they had just got forensics back and it was a slam

                      dunk for the defense as it does not place [defendant] at the scene and also the cell

                      phone company can not verify that he was in the area at the time of the alleged

                      call to his phone.”

       Darren’s affidavit was also attached to the motion. Darren averred that he overheard the State’s

       Attorney discussing nonmatching footprint impressions with Guzman but made no mention of

       exculpatory cell phone records.

                                                        4
¶ 12          The circuit court appointed Michelle Hansen to represent defendant. Hansen previously

       worked for the public defender’s office when she represented a codefendant, Reginald Chandler-

       Martin, who implicated defendant (see People v. Chandler-Martin, 2012 IL App (3d) 100734-

       U), but she did not work for the public defender’s office at the time the court appointed her to

       represent defendant. Hansen did not inform the court that she previously represented a

       codefendant at trial. At the time Hansen represented defendant on his motion, Chandler-Martin’s

       case was at second-stage postconviction proceedings. Hansen did not represent Chandler-Martin

       during the postconviction proceedings.

¶ 13          Hansen filed an amended motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea. In the motion, she

       argued: (1) defendant did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial, (2) defendant was not

       advised of exculpatory evidence prior to pleading guilty, (3) Guzman and Jaquays provided

       ineffective assistance where they did not advise defendant of exculpatory evidence before his

       guilty plea, (4) Jaquays provided ineffective assistance by recently hiring Assistant State’s

       Attorney Moore and not advising defendant that he could fire Jaquays, (5) Guzman and Jaquays

       provided ineffective assistance by threatening defendant to plead guilty or face life in prison, and

       (6) defendant’s family member overheard Platek tell Jaquays that it had no evidence against

       defendant and defendant would likely win at trial.

¶ 14          At a status hearing, the circuit court stated that it was “worked up” because McDowell

       left a letter on the bench. The court informed McDowell that one of the biggest things the court

       would not tolerate is ex parte communications. The court made the letter a part of the record.

       The court told McDowell to leave the courtroom.

¶ 15          At the hearing on the amended motion, Darren verified Guzman and Platek’s

       conversation relating to the footprint impressions. Guzman further testified that prior to

                                                        5
       defendant pleading guilty, he discussed cell phone records with defendant. Guzman did not

       discuss the footprint impressions directly with defendant, but he discussed it with Jaquays and

       defendant was present.

¶ 16          On cross-examination, Guzman testified that he and Platek only discussed footprint

       impressions on the morning of defendant’s plea. Guzman stated he did not feel that the footprint

       impressions were exculpatory evidence because there were codefendants. Additionally, Platek

       elicited the following testimony from Guzman:

                              “Q. Did you or anyone else threaten [defendant] that he was going to get

                      life in prison if he didn’t take this plea?

                              A. I did not tell him he was going to get life. My words to him were if he

                      were to be found guilty he is probably going to get the same sentence he got the

                      first time around which was 70 years. I believe maybe Mr. Jaquays did tell him in

                      different manners and different words you are going to do the rest of your life,

                      yes.

                              Q. That was because the sentence would be so long it would exceed his

                      life expectancy?

                              A. Yes.

                              Q. When that was informed to [defendant], was it a threat or was it just an

                      explanation?

                              A. It was just an explanation letting him know the risk of going forward

                      with trial, the possibility that that could happen.”

       The State never informed Guzman that it believed it would not prevail at trial. The only other

       witness to testify at the hearing was defendant. The circuit court denied the motion stating:

                                                          6
                              “And I think in taking that into consideration, both Mr. Guzman and Mr.

                      Jaquays are experienced attorneys in this courthouse; and working together, I

                      can’t imagine that there would have been some sort of collusion to not represent

                      you fully.

                              Knowing both of those attorneys as well as I do, from a professional

                      standpoint it would never cross my mind what they would do would call into

                      question their ethical approach to preparation as well as representation of you and

                      your defense. So with that being said, [defendant], I’m going to deny the motion

                      to withdraw your plea.”

       Defendant appealed, and we affirmed the court’s denial. People v. Jackson, 2018 IL App (3d)

       170125.

¶ 17          Defendant filed a 31-page postconviction petition as a self-represented litigant. Relevant

       to this appeal, defendant made the following conflict of interest claim:

                      “Petitioners post plea counsel refused to call all relevant witnesses pertaining to

                      the withholding of exculpatory evidence.

                                                            ***

                      The judge intended to appoint someone independent of the public

                      defenders office, but Ms. Hansen never disclosed she represented one of

                      the petitioners co-defendants (Chandler-Martin 08CF732) as a public

                      defender in trial. Also at the time she represented the petitioner she was

                      also employed as a public defender. The judge clearly wanted someone

                      separate from the PD office because it was a clear conflict of interest for a

                      public defender to represent me against the public defender office. Since

                                                        7
                      Ms. Hanson was financially dependent on the public defenders office and

                      currently employed while she represented the petitioner create a

                      possibility that she did not represent the petitioner fully. Also the conflict

                      from the office extended to her. Thus her failure to inform the petitioner,

                      and have him waive any conflict on the record violated petitioners 6th

                      Amendment right to the US Const.”

       Defendant also alleged that the State withheld exculpatory evidence, Guzman and Jaquays

       provided ineffective assistance, Hansen provided ineffective assistance by failing to call all

       relevant witnesses including defendant’s mother and Jaquays, he was innocent, and there was no

       factual basis for his guilty plea. The circuit court dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently

       without merit. Defendant appealed.

¶ 18                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶ 19          The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)) sets out a

       three-stage proceeding in which a criminal defendant may assert that his conviction resulted

       from a substantial denial of his rights under the United States Constitution, the Illinois

       Constitution, or both. People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2009). At the first stage, the court must

       accept as true and liberally construe all the allegations in the petition unless contradicted by the

       record. People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239, 244 (2001). A defendant need only allege sufficient

       facts to state the “gist” of a constitutional claim to advance the petition to the second stage.

       Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 9. The circuit court may summarily dismiss a first-stage petition as

       frivolous or patently without merit where it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Id. at 16. “A

       petition which lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact is one which is based on an

       indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful factual allegation.” Id. “An example of an

                                                         8
       indisputably meritless legal theory is one which is completely contradicted by the record.” Id.

       “Fanciful factual allegations include those which are fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 17. The

       dismissal of a postconviction petition is reviewed de novo. Id. at 9.

¶ 20                                           I. Conflict of Interest

¶ 21          Defendant first argues “[he] presented the gist of a claim of ineffective assistance of

       counsel caused by a conflict of interest where he alleged his attorney who represented him at the

       hearing to withdraw his guilty plea also previously represented, at trial, a *** co-defendant who

       had implicated [him] and who may be able to obtain a new trial.”

¶ 22          For a petition to advance to second-stage postconviction proceedings, defendant must

       make an arguable showing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 17. A

       defendant must show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that there is a

       “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding

       would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

¶ 23          The right to effective assistance of trial counsel derives from the sixth amendment and

       includes the correlative right to conflict-free representation. People v. Hardin, 217 Ill. 2d 289,

       299 (2005). Multiple representation of criminal codefendants is not a per se conflict of interest.

       People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356, 375 (2010). While there is always the possibility that the

       interests of codefendants may diverge, a conflict of interest is not inherent in multiple

       representation situations merely by virtue of such representation. Id. “Where *** a potential

       conflict of interest is not brought to the attention of the [circuit] court, ‘a defendant must

       establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.’ ” Id.

       (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980)). “[D]efendant must show that an actual

       conflict of interest manifested at trial.” Id. at 376. “ ‘[T]his means [a] defendant must point to

                                                          9
       some specific defect in his counsel’s strategy, tactics, or decision making attributable to the

       conflict.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Speitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (1988)). Accordingly, at the first

       stage, defendant must point to some arguable defect in his counsel’s strategy, tactics, or decision

       making arguably attributable to an arguable conflict.

¶ 24           Defendant argues Hansen’s prior representation of Chandler-Martin was an arguable

       conflict of interest since Hansen owed Chandler-Martin a continuing duty of loyalty. See People

       v. Gerold, 265 Ill. 448, 477 (1914). “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter

       shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which

       that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the

       former client gives informed consent.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 1.9(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2010). Here, the matter in

       which Hansen previously represented Chandler-Martin is substantially related as it involves the

       same transaction or legal dispute. However, defendant fails to establish how defendant and

       Chandler-Martin’s interests were materially adverse at this stage in defendant’s postconviction

       proceedings.

¶ 25           At the time Hansen was representing defendant in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea,

       Chandler-Martin’s case had proceeded to second-stage postconviction proceedings. Defendant

       argues that if Chandler-Martin’s case results in a new trial, his interests would be adverse to

       defendant’s since Chandler-Martin would likely argue at trial that he was innocent and defendant

       was the perpetrator. Thus, enabling defendant to withdraw his guilty plea compromises

       Chandler-Martin’s defense theory at his hypothetical new trial because he would not be able to

       use defendant’s guilty plea in his defense.1

               1
                  Defendant cites People v. Grant, 339 Ill. App. 3d 792, 801 (2003) for the proposition that in a
       joint trial an attorney may not represent two clients who have antagonistic defenses, while also
       recognizing that there was no joint trial in this case.
                                                            10
¶ 26             Defendant’s theory has little, if any, connection to the record and is reliant on speculation

       as to the result of proceedings that may or may not occur. See Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 17.

       Chandler-Martin and defendant’s interests were not adverse at the time Hansen represented

       defendant.

¶ 27             Assuming, arguendo, that Hansen’s prior representation of Chandler-Martin is a conflict

       of interest, defendant must still point to some defect in Hansen’s representation arguably

       attributable to the conflict. Supra ¶ 23. Defendant argues that Hansen’s failure to disclose the

       conflict was a defect. However, this argument is circular. See Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d at 375-76.

¶ 28             Defendant argues Hansen was defective for not calling McDowell and Jaquays. However,

       “[d]ecisions concerning what witnesses to call and what evidence to present on a defendant’s

       behalf are viewed as matters of trial strategy. Such decisions are generally immune from claims

       of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Munson, 206 Ill. 2d 104, 139-40 (2002). “The

       only exception to this rule is when counsel’s chosen trial strategy is so unsound that counsel

       entirely fails to conduct any meaningful adversarial testing.” People v. Reid, 179 Ill. 2d 297, 310

       (1997).

¶ 29             It is clear from the record that McDowell did not hear the conversation pertaining to the

       alleged exculpatory evidence but learned about it only through Darren. Thus, McDowell’s

       testimony in this regard would have been subject to a hearsay objection. And hearsay aside, any

       such testimony by McDowell would have been entirely cumulative of Darren’s testimony about

       the conversation between Guzman and Jaquays. Additionally, defendant’s plea counsel Guzman

       testified about the conversations between the attorneys and defendant, and explicitly stated that

       neither attorney threatened defendant. Further, Jaquays had previously explained to the court at

       the hearing on defendant’s first motion to withdraw his plea about the details of their discussions

                                                          11
       at the time of the plea. Thus, it is not arguable that Hansen’s chosen trial strategy to not call

       McDowell or Jaquays was so unsound that she failed to conduct any meaningful adversarial

       testing. See Reid, 179 Ill. 2d at 310.

¶ 30          In summary, defendant’s petition fails to identify any arguments or proposed testimony

       that should have been presented at the hearing on the amended motion to withdraw his plea, that

       would support the claim that Hansen was ineffective. See Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 16 (meritless

       legal theories include ones completely contradicted by the record). Unlike our dissenting

       colleague, we believe the record contradicts defendant’s legal theories. For these reasons, we

       find defendant did not present the gist of a constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of

       counsel by a conflict of interest.

¶ 31                                        II. Exculpatory Evidence

¶ 32          Defendant argues his postconviction petition presented the gist of a claim where he

       alleged the State manipulated and/or withheld exculpatory cell phone records. See Brady, 373

       U.S. 83. In support, defendant notes that the State violates a defendant’s right to due process

       when it withholds favorable evidence that is material either to the defendant’s guilt or

       punishment. Id. A Brady claim requires a showing that: (1) the undisclosed evidence is favorable

       to the accused because it is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the State willfully or

       inadvertently suppressed the evidence; and (3) the suppressed evidence prejudiced the accused

       because the evidence is material to guilt or punishment. People v. Burt, 205 Ill. 2d 28, 47 (2001).

¶ 33          However, defendant’s exculpatory evidence claim is contradicted by the record.

       Defendant bases his Brady claim on a conversation between the State and Guzman that Darren

       overheard. Defendant argues Darren overheard Platek tell Guzman new cell phone data

       exculpated defendant. However, Guzman denied a conversation about exculpatory cell phone

                                                         12
       records ever took place. Moreover, Darren confirmed that the conversation he overheard did not

       involve exculpatory cell phone records but rather footprint impressions.

¶ 34          Additionally, defendant argues a police report supports the existence of cell phone

       records. While there are cell phone records in this case, the record supports that the State

       tendered those records to defendant prior to this court reversing and remanding defendant’s

       initial conviction. Further, even if the cell phone records were not disclosed, they did not cause a

       Brady violation because the records do not exculpate defendant, but rather place him near the

       victim’s residence at the time of the offenses. Defendant did not make the gist of a Brady

       violation claim.

¶ 35          Therefore, the petition was properly dismissed at the first stage.

¶ 36                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 37          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County.

¶ 38          Affirmed.

¶ 39          JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting:

¶ 40          The majority states the rule applicable to first stage postconviction proceedings and then

       seemingly ignores it. This is an initial postconviction petition filed by a pro se defendant.

¶ 41          Defendant alleges that his appointed counsel labored under a conflict of interest in that

       she had previously represented another person charged with the same crime and that her previous

       client claimed that defendant and not he actually committed that crime. Defendant further alleges

       that counsel did not disclose that prior representation to the court or to him, thus depriving him

       of his right to question counsel and either waive the conflict or seek unconflicted counsel.

¶ 42          We are directed by the statute to take those allegations as true unless, even liberally

       construed, they are affirmatively rebutted by the record. I find no evidence that they are so

                                                        13
       rebutted in this case. Taken as true, defendant has alleged the gist of a claim of a sixth

       amendment deprivation of his right to conflict-free representation.

¶ 43           Procedurally, the statute next confers a right to appointed counsel who is directed to

       review his claims and the pertinent record and put those claims into proper and properly

       supported form. It is only then, when his allegations have presumably been appropriately

       formatted by a person standing on equal legal footing with the prosecutor, that the statute says

       they can be subjected to a merits-based attack and the State is allowed to move to dismiss the

       petition.

¶ 44           Also pertinent to this appeal, the statute provides that if any one of defendant’s claims

       states the gist of a constitutional claim, all of his claims remain viable and the entire petition is

       submitted to appointed counsel. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2), (b) (West 2016); People v. Rivera,

       198 Ill. 2d 364, 371 (2001).

¶ 45           In his petition, defendant has conflated two sixth amendment guarantees—the right to

       conflict-free counsel and the right to effective assistance of counsel. The failure to differentiate

       between the two has enabled and facilitated the analysis and disposal of both by this court.

¶ 46           Here, defendant’s allegations, standing without benefit of professional assessment,

       judgment, articulation and shaping by legal counsel, have been subjected to the full weight of

       judicial dissection, analysis and reasoning, and—not surprisingly given the imbalance—been

       found wanting. We have applied standards and requirements of which defendant is likely

       unaware but that counsel would be able to bring to bear in evaluating and presenting his or her

       client’s claims. The level playing field and procedural fairness that the legislature attempted to

       establish in its structuring of the Act has, in my opinion, been thwarted here.

                                                         14