People v. Fellers
2016 IL App (4th) 140486
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In late December 2012 police observed a Chevrolet Malibu driving erratically; an officer pursued in a marked squad car and the Malibu stopped at 804 N. Main St.; a person exited and ran toward the house.
- Officer Armstrong identified footprints and clothing matching defendant Karl Fellers; Armstrong smelled alcohol and burnt cannabis and arrested Fellers after field sobriety testing.
- Inventory of the towed Malibu produced a small container with 0.3 grams of cannabis; lab tests showed alcohol and metabolites of THC and heroin in Fellers’ samples.
- Fellers was tried in a bench trial and convicted of four DUI counts and one count of unlawful possession of cannabis; acquitted of obstruction.
- On appeal Fellers raised ineffective assistance of counsel for: (1) failing to use the dash‑cam video to impeach Officer Armstrong, and (2) failing to file a suppression motion challenging the inventory search that produced the cannabis.
- The appellate court affirmed the DUI convictions but retained jurisdiction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the suppression/ineffective‑assistance claim because the record was undeveloped as to the towing/inventory justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not impeaching Armstrong with dash‑cam video | Video discrepancies were minor; court viewed video and Armstrong’s testimony remained credible | Counsel should have highlighted contradictions between testimony and video to undermine identification and driving evidence | No prejudice shown; counsel’s failure did not change outcome; DUI convictions affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing suppression motion for items found in inventory search | Record is undeveloped; towing/inventory may have been lawful under department policy and community‑caretaking; appellate record insufficient | Failure to move to suppress was prejudicial because evidence might be inadmissible and defendant cannot pursue postconviction relief now | Record insufficient on direct appeal; retained jurisdiction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance regarding the suppression issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194 (objective standard for counsel performance)
- People v. Houston, 229 Ill. 2d 1 (reasonable probability standard for prejudice)
- People v. Mason, 403 Ill. App. 3d 1048 (inventory search/tow principles and community caretaking justification)