A split Illinois Supreme Court has granted a man a chance to appeal his conviction on charges of using counterfeit money to steal a motorcycle, because they said his lawyers failed to "reasonably" present his claims on appeal and in post conviction motions.
In dissent, however, the state's chief justice warned that the majority had chosen the wrong case to make such "grand pronouncements" concerning the requirements on counsel representing people convicted of crimes.
In a 5-2 opinion issued April 20, the court ruled in favor of Dion Addison, whose legal issue dates to a February 2012 indictment for unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, forgery and theft. He was released on bond and didn’t show up for his trial, at which a Kane County jury convicted him on all counts.
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford
| facebook.com/JudgeRochford
One day before his sentencing in March 2013, a new lawyer requested a judgement notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The judge rejected the request and sentenced Addison to a total of 20 years in prison. In September 2014 Addison spoke with an appeals attorney who said the only avenue was a motion seeking credit for one day of confinement.
In March 2015, representing himself, Addison filed a postconviction petition challenging the adequacy of his trial and appellate attorneys. A Kane County judge advanced that petition and appointed a lawyer for Addison; that lawyer filed an amended petition in July 2017. Ultimately a judge granted the state’s motion to dismiss the complaint, determining Addison wasn’t entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on a failure to allege violation of a constitutional right,
An Illinois Second District Appellate court panel reversed that ruling, concluding “postconviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by failing to frame (Addison’s) claims as ones of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the claims on direct appeal,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.
Prosecutors then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing the appeals court had gotten it wrong.
Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote the Supreme Court majority opinion on that appeal; Justices P. Scott Neville, Lisa Holder White, Joy V, Cunningham and Mary K. O’Brien concurred.
Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote the dissent, joined by Justice David Overstreet.
On appeal, the state argued Addison’s postconviction lawyers weren’t required to pursue whether the appellate counsel was effective. Further, the state argued, even if the postconviction counsel did fall short of obligations, Addison would only be entitled to a remand by showing legal prejudice.
The majority opinion held Addison’s postconviction counsel failed to provide reasonable assistance and said it worsened Addison’s petition.
“We cannot hold that postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance where she identified several claims that she believed were worth pursuing but did not make the necessary amendments to put the claims in their proper form,” Rochford wrote. “Worse than that, she eliminated the necessary allegations that defendant had included in the pro se petition.”
Because it reached that finding, Rochford explained, it agreed the appeals panel was correct to remand the case without considering the merits of Addison’s petition.
Theis opened her dissent by saying the majority needn’t have addressed remand because it should’ve taken “the trial court’s words literally” at the time it dismissed the posttrial conviction.
“Further, because I cannot fathom how trial counsel was ineffective and how appellate counsel could have asserted that he was, I cannot conclude that postconviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by including an underdeveloped claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in the amended petition,” Theis wrote.
Theis further dug into the procedural history of Addison’s dealing with the person selling the motorcycle, use of counterfeit currency — to which Addison admitted — and interactions with U.S. Secret Service including refusal of an attorney. She also examined the original trial and Addison’s defense counsel’s statements about his lone ability to testify to whether he knew the money was counterfeit.
Addison’s defense attorney said Addison was “my key witness,” “essentially my only witness” and “my best and really only witness,” Theis noted, and even with him absent, tried to argue Addison wasn’t aware the bills were counterfeit.
“Under those challenging circumstances, trial counsel performed effectively,” Theis wrote. “Appellate counsel had no argument to make regarding the core of the defendant’s case, the voluntariness of his confession, because the defendant intentionally sabotaged that argument by not appearing. And because neither trial nor appellate counsel was ineffective, postconviction counsel did not render unreasonable assistance by including an underdeveloped claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in the amended petition.”
Theis concluded by saying Addison’s situation is “is not one in which the court should make grand pronouncements about postconviction petitions” and added that “under the unique facts of this case, the court’s narrow holding should be to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant’s amended petition on its merits.”