2022 IL App (1st) 200746
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Defendant Iviva Paige was convicted after a bench trial for the 2006 stabbing death of Katrina Adams following a fight outside a Chicago nightclub; defense asserted self-defense and mutual combat.
- At trial, after the State rested, the court admonished Paige that she had a constitutional right to testify or not and asked whether, after discussing with counsel, she wished to testify; Paige answered, “I don’t want to testify.”
- On direct appeal the conviction was affirmed; Paige later filed a post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel deprived her of the right to testify by failing to prepare her and instructing her to tell the court not to testify.
- At a third-stage evidentiary hearing Paige testified her counsel told her to “say no” when the judge asked whether she would testify and that counsel never prepared her to testify; counsel denied instructing her to say no but admitted limited preparation.
- The trial court granted post-conviction relief, finding counsel ineffective and ordering a new trial; the State appealed.
- The appellate majority reversed, holding the on-the-record admonishment and Paige’s unequivocal statement that she did not want to testify positively rebut her claim under People v. Knapp; a dissent argued the contemporaneous-assertion rule is not absolute where counsel actively interferes with the admonishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paige knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to testify (or whether counsel deprived her of that right) | Knapp controls: because the court admonished Paige and she expressly said she did not want to testify, the record positively rebuts her claim; no ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to meaningfully advise or prepare Paige and told her to say “no,” so her in-court waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary | Majority: Waiver on the record (“I don’t want to testify”) positively rebuts the claim; relief reversed |
| Whether counsel’s conduct satisfied Strickland (deficient performance and prejudice) given the contemporaneous-assertion rule | Even if counsel erred, the contemporaneous on-the-record waiver defeats the claim; Knapp forecloses relief | Counsel’s interference and lack of preparation met Strickland prongs; contemporaneous-assertion rule is not absolute when counsel undermines admonishments | Majority: Because the record rebuts involuntariness, defendant did not meet Strickland burden on post-conviction review; trial-court grant reversed (dissent would affirm) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Knapp, 2020 IL 124992 (Ill. 2020) (on-record admonishment and defendant’s explicit refusal can positively rebut claim that waiver was involuntary)
- People v. Madej, 177 Ill. 2d 116 (1997) (defendant has exclusive right to decide whether to testify)
- People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 (2000) (contemporaneous assertion requirement to preserve right to testify)
- People v. Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d 148 (1994) (discussing consequences when defendants expected to testify but did not assert right contemporaneously)
- People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 21 (1973) (early articulation of contemporaneous-assertion concerns where defendant was silent when counsel rested case)