People v. James

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. No ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress drug evidence seized, as such a motion would not have been granted on basis of the record. Prosecutor's closing argument did not deny Defendant a fair trial, and matter-of-fact comments were not used to inflame jury's passions or dissuade jury from fulfilling its nonpartisan role. It is not improper for a prosecutor to refer to Defendant's profit motive, where evidence shows that Defendant sold narcotics. Prosecutor's statement was a reasonable inference to draw on the evidence. (FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring.)