People v. Veach
2017 IL 120649
| Ill. | 2018Background
- Blackie Veach was convicted by a Coles County jury of two counts of attempted murder for allegedly cutting the throats of Matthew Price and Renee Strohl; he received consecutive 16-year sentences.
- Key prosecution witnesses (Johnny Price, Matthew Price, and Renee Strohl) testified at trial and also gave recorded statements; the parties stipulated to admission and playback of those recordings in full.
- Defense counsel explained on the record that he planned to use portions of the recordings for impeachment but believed that using them would "open the door" to the State introducing the entire recordings under the doctrine of completeness; counsel acquiesced to playing the full recordings.
- The recorded statements contained multiple inculpatory admissions inconsistent with trial testimony and character evidence used by both sides; defense pursued alternative theories blaming Matthew or Johnny.
- On direct appeal the Fourth District majority declined to address Veach’s ineffective-assistance claim—categorizing it as a case where the record was inadequate and encouraging postconviction proceedings—while a dissent would have reviewed and found prejudice.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, held the record was sufficient to decide ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal in this case, reversed the appellate court’s procedural refusal, and remanded for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court properly declined to decide ineffective-assistance claim on direct review | State: appellate court should have decided the claim now; conceded record adequate to review | Veach: appellate court wrongly deferred and forced collateral review | Court: appellate court erred; must consider claim on direct review and remand for merits |
| Whether counsel’s stipulation to admit full recorded statements constituted deficient performance | State: conceded appellate review appropriate but argued counsel’s decision was not deficient | Veach: counsel was deficient for stipulating to whole recordings when intent was only impeachment | Court: remanded to appellate court to evaluate deficiency and prejudice on the record (did not decide merits) |
| Whether Massaro/Bew require routine deferral of ineffective-assistance claims to collateral review | Appellate majority: Massaro/Bew favor collateral development and deferral | Veach: those cases do not mandate categorical deferral; Illinois requires raising apparent claims on direct review | Court: rejected categorical deferral practice; case-by-case review required; direct review appropriate when record suffices |
| Whether Kunze and similar precedent justify blanket refusal to address ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal | Appellate majority relied on Kunze to prefer postconviction proceedings | Veach: Kunze’s broad rule is suspect and incompatible with Illinois law requiring apparent claims on direct review | Court: criticized Kunze’s sweep and held its broad holding suspect; required individualized assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims need not be raised on direct appeal; collateral review often better for fact development but not mandatory)
- People v. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d 122 (2008) (recognizes preference for collateral development in some ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Kokoraleis, 159 Ill. 2d 325 (1994) (Illinois rule that ineffective-assistance claims apparent on the record must be raised on direct appeal)
- People v. Kunze, 193 Ill. App. 3d 708 (1990) (appellate court had declined to adjudicate ineffective-assistance claim and favored postconviction development; Court here found broad application of Kunze suspect)