People v. Harmon
2013 IL App (2d) 120439
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 2006, then-17-year-old Ryan Harmon was tried and convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from the June 2–4 abduction and arson of Michael Feehan; Harmon was sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms for aggravated kidnapping and a consecutive 5-year term for arson.
- Key evidence: Feehan’s in-court and photo-lineup identification; McDonald’s video showing Harmon; a latent fingerprint on Feehan’s class schedule that an expert (Detective Shimaitis) matched to Harmon; physical corroboration (McDonald’s bag/receipt in the trunk; cut on Harmon’s hand).
- Harmon filed a pro se postconviction petition raising 11 claims, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to investigate and call Willie Gulley (who allegedly could corroborate Harmon’s account of injuring his hand while moving) and (2) failing to challenge the foundation for the fingerprint expert’s testimony; he also asserted appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising those issues on direct appeal.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the petition at the first stage as frivolous and patently without merit; Harmon appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed: (1) counsel’s failure to call Gulley was not arguably ineffective because Gulley’s recollection was uncertain and his testimony would have been cumulative and not an alibi, and (2) the fingerprint expert provided sufficient foundational testimony (stating >12 points of comparison), so any objection would not have been arguably meritorious or prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Harmon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call Willie Gulley | Counsel’s decision not to call Gulley was reasonable; Gulley’s recollection was uncertain and his testimony would be cumulative | Counsel delayed investigation, failed to subpoena Gulley; Gulley would corroborate Harmon’s explanation for his cut and undermine prosecution | Dismissal affirmed — claim frivolous: Gulley was uncertain, testimony cumulative, not an alibi, and no arguable prejudice |
| 2) Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to fingerprint expert’s foundation | Shimaitis gave adequate foundation (explained method and testified he found >12 matching minutiae) | Shimaitis failed to document or identify specific comparison points; like Safford, testimony lacked a proper foundation and counsel should have objected | Dismissal affirmed — foundation adequate; even if excluded, no arguable prejudice given other corroborating evidence |
| 3) Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the Gulley and fingerprint issues on direct appeal | No prejudice because the underlying claims lacked merit | Failure to raise these issues deprived Harmon of appellate review of meritorious claims | Dismissal affirmed — appellate ineffectiveness fails where underlying issues are frivolous or not prejudicial |
| 4) Whether Illinois’ Juvenile Court Act exclusive-jurisdiction provision (treating 17-year-olds charged with felonies as adults) is unconstitutional | Statute does not impose cruel or unusual punishment and does not violate due process; Supreme Court juvenile decisions target the harshest penalties and sentencing rules, not forum statutes | Provision violates Eighth Amendment and due process by automatically treating 17-year-olds as adults without individualized consideration of youthfulness | Dismissal affirmed — provision does not violate Eighth Amendment or due process; Supreme Court precedents address extreme sentencing (death, LWOP) and do not invalidate forum statutes like section 5-120 |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment bars death penalty for juveniles)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory LWOP for juveniles; requires individualized sentencing consideration)
- Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (postconviction standard; ineffective-assistance framework in Illinois)
- Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 (2000) (application of Strickland to claims about witness investigation and appellate counsel)
- People v. J.S., 103 Ill. 2d 395 (1984) (rational-basis analysis upholding automatic-transfer provisions of Juvenile Court Act)
- People v. Johnson, 183 Ill. 2d 176 (1998) (when record supports claims, affidavit requirement for postconviction witness claims may be excused)
- People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109 (2006) (statutory construction and constitutional review principles)