2018 IL App (5th) 150363
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Joseph Garcia was tried for attempted residential burglary after police found him on a back deck with another man; a knife and pry marks were discovered but there was no evidence of entry.
- The trial court granted Garcia’s pretrial motion in limine barring other-crimes evidence in the State’s case-in-chief; the prosecutor said he would only use prior convictions if defendant testified.
- The State played two unedited videotaped police interviews of Garcia at trial, which contained references to prior convictions, drug use, and other uncharged burglaries; defense counsel made no objections and rested.
- The jury convicted Garcia; defense counsel then filed a posttrial motion arguing plain error because the videotapes contained prejudicial other-crimes evidence.
- At the posttrial hearing defense counsel admitted the videos contained prejudicial material but declined to present evidence about why he hadn’t objected, saying he’d assumed redactions; the trial court denied the motion and sentenced Garcia to 10 years.
- On appeal the Fifth District considered whether defense counsel had a conflict of interest at the posttrial stage because he had to argue his own trial error, and whether that conflict adversely affected his performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s need to argue his own trial error creates a per se conflict | No per se conflict exists under Illinois categories; counsel can argue his own performance | A new per se category should be recognized when counsel must assert his own ineffectiveness posttrial | Court: No per se conflict; decline to expand categories established by Taylor and Hernandez |
| Whether defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest at the posttrial hearing | Counsel zealously advocated plain-error relief; no proof counsel’s performance was impaired by self-interest | Counsel was reluctant to prove his own ineffectiveness and failed to present evidence, showing divided loyalty | Court: Actual conflict existed because counsel’s reluctance to prove his error adversely affected presentation of the motion |
| Remedy required if an actual conflict is found | Deny relief if defendant can’t show prejudice under Strickland | Vacate denial of posttrial motion and appoint conflict-free counsel for new posttrial proceedings | Court: Vacated denial of posttrial motion and remanded for appointment of conflict-free counsel and new posttrial hearing |
| Whether the court expresses a view on trial counsel’s actual Strickland prejudice | State urged resolution on merits now | Defendant sought only conflict-based relief and a new posttrial hearing | Court: Declined to decide whether counsel’s failure to object satisfies Strickland; remanded for conflict-free counsel to raise meritorious issues |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Miller, 199 Ill. 2d 541 (framework for de novo review of conflicts)
- People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134 (right to conflict-free counsel; per se vs actual conflict distinction)
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356 (three recognized categories of per se conflicts)
- People v. Davis, 151 Ill. App. 3d 435 (declining to find per se conflict where counsel must argue own ineffectiveness)
- People v. Perkins, 408 Ill. App. 3d 752 (actual-conflict analysis depends on underlying allegations of incompetence)
- People v. Lawton, 212 Ill. 2d 285 (discussing forfeiture and counsel’s potential conflict when competence is questioned)
- People v. Morales, 209 Ill. 2d 340 (need to show a specific defect in counsel’s performance attributable to a conflict)
- People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1 (standards on conflicts and prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (adoption of Strickland in Illinois)
- People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307 (strong presumption that counsel’s choices are trial strategy)
- People v. Phillips, 227 Ill. App. 3d 581 (failure to object to other-crimes evidence can be ineffective assistance)
- People v. Fletcher, 335 Ill. App. 3d 447 (counsel ineffective for eliciting defendant’s criminal history)
- People v. Woidtke, 313 Ill. App. 3d 399 (right to undivided loyalty of counsel)