People v. Hatchett
48 N.E.3d 1223
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 2003 Patrick Taylor was shot and later died; Derrick Hatchett and Arthur Foote were charged with murder and aggravated battery. Hatchett was convicted after a March 6, 2007 bench trial and sentenced to 45 years.
- Attorney Eric Dunham initially represented both Hatchett and Foote during pretrial proceedings; the State repeatedly raised a potential conflict if plea offers requiring testimony against a codefendant were contemplated.
- The trial court granted Hatchett’s motion to suppress his statement on May 3, 2006; thereafter the State discussed (only hypothetically) making plea offers that might require one defendant to testify against the other.
- On December 12, 2006 the court found a conflict and Dunham withdrew from representing Foote, remaining as Hatchett’s counsel; trial occurred three months later.
- Hatchett filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance due to Dunham’s conflict of interest and failure to pursue or convey a plea offer; after a third-stage evidentiary hearing the postconviction court found Dunham credible, Hatchett not credible, and dismissed the petition. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hatchett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual representation by Dunham during pretrial proceedings violated Hatchett’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel | Dunham’s joint representation prevented pursuit/conveyance of plea offers (including one requiring Hatchett to testify against Foote) and counsel failed to advise Hatchett about the conflict, prejudicing him | Any offers were only hypothetical; court cured conflict on Dec 12, 2006 by appointing separate counsel for Foote; Hatchett suffered no prejudice | No reversible violation: court alleviated conflict before trial and Hatchett failed to show an actual adverse effect from the earlier joint representation |
| Whether court should have admonished Hatchett after Dunham elected to continue representing him alone | Court should have warned Hatchett about implications of the prior conflict and advisability of separate counsel | No authority requires post-resolution admonition; conflict was resolved and Hatchett was present at hearings | No duty found; claim unsupported by law and record |
| Whether Hatchett consented to Dunham’s continued representation or had a right to counsel of choice | Hatchett contends there was no informed consent and Dunham was aligned with Foote’s family interests | Hatchett never objected at hearings, payments were made by Foote initially then by Hatchett’s family, and Hatchett had prior relationship with Dunham | Forfeited on appeal and, on the record, Hatchett did not object and continued to use Dunham in other matters; claim lacks merit |
| Whether Hatchett showed prejudice from alleged deficient performance (failure to investigate/pursue/convey plea offers) | Had Dunham pursued or conveyed offers, Hatchett would have accepted a plea that required testifying against Foote | No actual plea offer was ever made; discussions were hypothetical; Hatchett cannot show reasonable probability of a different outcome | No prejudice shown: State never extended a real offer and postconviction court’s credibility findings support dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standard of review for third-stage postconviction evidentiary findings)
- People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115 (Illinois Supreme Court) (overview of Post-Conviction Hearing Act)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Illinois Supreme Court) (first-stage summary dismissal standards)
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (Illinois Supreme Court) (requirements to advance petition past second stage)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356 (Illinois Supreme Court) (dual representation not per se conflict; analysis of joint representation)
- People v. Vriner, 74 Ill. 2d 329 (Illinois Supreme Court) (addressing hindsight and multiple-representation strategy concerns)
- People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138 (Illinois Supreme Court) (joint representation principles)
- People v. Clark, 374 Ill. App. 3d 50 (Illinois Appellate Court) (distinction between potential conflict timely raised and unraised conflicts)
- People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1 (Illinois Supreme Court) (trial court duties when potential conflict is raised)
- People v. White, 362 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (Illinois Appellate Court) (contrast case where actual conflict manifested at trial)
- People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (Illinois Supreme Court) (deference to strategic choices of counsel)
- People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465 (Illinois Supreme Court) (no constitutional right to plea bargain)
- People v. Hatchett, 397 Ill. App. 3d 495 (Illinois Appellate Court) (appellate opinion on direct appeal referenced in the postconviction proceedings)