People v. Patterson
997 N.E.2d 673
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Cowarna Patterson was convicted of first-degree murder; assistant public defender Michael Combs represented her at trial and later accepted a position with the State’s Attorney’s office.
- Before sentencing, another public defender, Edward Light, advised the court Combs had become an assistant State’s Attorney and that Light consulted Combs before sentencing; a prosecutor stated she supervised Combs.
- Patterson received the statutory minimum 20-year sentence, and her direct appeal was affirmed.
- Patterson filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging Combs had a conflict of interest by joining the prosecutor’s office; the trial court initially dismissed, this court remanded for second-stage proceedings (Patterson II) to allow a possible showing of an actual conflict.
- On remand, appointed counsel filed an amended petition alleging conflict/ineffective assistance by Combs and that Light was beholden to Combs; the trial court dismissed the amended petition at the second stage and Patterson appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding (1) Patterson II resolved that no per se conflict existed and that remains law of the case, and (2) the amended petition failed to allege specific factual defects showing an actual conflict or deficient performance by either Combs or Light.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Patterson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Combs’ acceptance of a job with the State’s Attorney created a per se conflict of interest | No per se conflict; record shows parties and court knew and Patterson waived any potential conflict; law-of-the-case (Patterson II) forecloses per se conflict | Combs’ hiring created a conflict requiring a hearing to determine whether per se or actual conflict existed | No per se conflict; Patterson II is law of the case and a pretrial/anticipated future association does not create a per se conflict |
| Whether an actual conflict of interest existed that adversely affected Combs’ trial performance | No—Patterson’s amended petition alleges only conclusions and no specific defects in strategy, tactics, or decisionmaking attributable to a conflict | An evidentiary hearing is needed to determine if Combs knew pretrial and whether that knowledge undermined his advocacy | No actual-conflict showing: petitioner failed to plead specific factual defects or affidavits; dismissal at second stage was proper |
| Whether Light was ineffective or so beholden to Combs that he failed to raise Combs’ ineffectiveness in posttrial motion | Light could not be ineffective at sentencing (Patterson got minimum) and cannot be shown ineffective for not raising an unpled, speculative claim | Light was influenced by Combs and thus failed to investigate/raise Combs’ conflict in posttrial motion, requiring a hearing | No. The amended petition lacked specific allegations showing Light’s deficient performance; absent specific defects by Combs, there was nothing for Light to (and no failure to) raise |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. People, 209 Ill. 2d 340 (establishes standards for per se vs. actual conflict and requirement to show specific defects for actual conflict)
- Spreitzer v. People, 123 Ill. 2d 1 (explains rationale for per se conflict rule and subliminal effects on advocacy)
- Hernandez v. People, 231 Ill. 2d 134 (identifies three situations creating per se conflicts)
- Stoval v. People, 40 Ill. 2d 109 (per se conflict excuses showing of actual prejudice)
- Coleman v. People, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (postconviction petitions must plead facts, not conclusions, to warrant hearing)
- Gaultney v. People, 174 Ill. 2d 410 (overview of three-stage postconviction procedure)
- Buchanan v. People, 403 Ill. App. 3d 600 (second-stage dismissal standard: substantial showing of constitutional violation required)