People v. Garman
2016 IL App (3d) 150406
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant John D. Garman was charged and convicted of residential burglary after police recovered a PlayStation 3 (PS3) and numerous PS2 games from his bedroom; a PS2 was not recovered.
- Victims Kevin Dixson and Demeca Jackson identified the PS3 and games returned to them by police as the items taken from their home; Dixson matched the PS3 serial number to his purchase receipt.
- Detective Elizabeth Blair searched Garman’s residence under a warrant, recovered a duffel bag with a PS3 and games, and returned the PS3 and several games to the victims without photographing the items first.
- The State conceded Blair failed to follow section 115-9(b) (which requires certain procedural steps before returning property), specifically the photographic requirement, when returning the property.
- Garman’s trial counsel did not object to testimony identifying the recovered property; Garman appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because the identification testimony should have been barred due to the section 115-9(b) violation.
- The trial court sentenced Garman to 8½ years; the appellate court affirmed, holding the statute governs photographic evidence, not witness identification testimony, so no prejudice under Strickland was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 115-9(b) violation (failure to photograph before returning property) requires suppression of witness identification testimony | Section 115-9 governs photographic evidence and does not bar witness identification testimony; testimony remains admissible | Section 115-9(b) violation taints identification evidence and counsel was ineffective for not moving to bar that testimony | Section 115-9 pertains to admission of photographs, not witness ID; a motion to bar ID testimony would not have succeeded, so no Strickland prejudice |
| Whether appellate counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland | State: even assuming counsel erred, defendant cannot show prejudice because suppression motion would not be meritorious | Garman: counsel’s omission was objectively unreasonable and likely changed the outcome | Court: Defendant failed to show prejudice — without a meritorious suppression motion, Strickland prejudice not established; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
- People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312 (statutory interpretation follows plain meaning)
- People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65 (no need to decide deficiency if prejudice not shown)
- People v. Mikolajewski, 272 Ill. App. 3d 311 (photographs held inadmissible where statutory return procedure was not followed; distinguishable because it involved photographs rather than witness ID)