Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder and concealment of a homicidal and sentenced to consecutive terms of 26 and 4 years. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that Defendant's video statement should be suppressed under U.S. Supreme Court's 2004 Missouri v. Seibert opinion. A Seibert claim was not meritorious and highly unlikely to succeed. Trial counsel's motion to suppress already alleged that Defendant's statements were un-Mirandized, and after evidentiary hearing court found otherwise. Adding a Seibert claim to motion to suppress would not have changed that trial court had rejected the crucial factual allegation underlying such a claim Circuit court had ample evidence to affirmatively refute the postconviction claim that Defendant a valid Seibert claim. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for not contending that trial counsel was ineffective in that manner. Trial court was aware, well before trial, of Defendant's mental health diagnoses and medications, and no concerns about his fitness were raised in trial court proceedings. No error in circuit court finding no grounds to doubt Defendant's fitness and no error in dismissing postconviction petition claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a fitness hearing. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel