People v. Corder
| Decision Date | 26 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-252,81-252 |
| Citation | 103 Ill.App.3d 434,431 N.E.2d 701,59 Ill.Dec. 200 |
| Parties | , 59 Ill.Dec. 200 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard CORDER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Peter A. Carusona, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Robert J. Agostinelli, State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Kenneth A. Wilhelm, John X. Breslin, State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Ottawa, John A. Barra, State's Atty., Peoria, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant Richard Corder was convicted of unlawful delivery of a substance represented to be a controlled substance and sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment. After filing a notice of appeal, defendant moved to dismiss his appeal and filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed and after an evidentiary hearing on an amended petition, the circuit court of Peoria County denied post-conviction relief.
On January 4, 1979, defendant was indicted for the subject crime, and a public defender was appointed to represent him. That appointment was withdrawn on February 13, 1979, when a privately-retained attorney appeared for defendant. Trial was set for March 5, 1979, but the attorney requested and received a continuance for the purpose of further investigation. On March 19, 1979, counsel again requested a continuance pending the disposition of another proceeding. This the court denied and the cause proceeded to trial.
The State's evidence implicating defendant in the crime consisted of the testimony of Officer James Williams, an occurrence witness. Officer Williams testified that on June 21, 1978, he was working in an undercover capacity in the area of the El Dorado Club. At approximately 1 a. m., the witness met a black male who was introduced to him as Richard Corder. The officer had never met or seen this person before, but at trial identified defendant as that individual and further testified that defendant sold him a substance represented to be heroin. Officer Williams indicated that the transaction occurred while he was in the front seat, and defendant was in the rear seat, of a station wagon. The vehicle was parked approximately 75 feet from the nearest street light, and the interior lights were off, but the officer could clearly see that the criminal was clean shaven.
Defendant's evidence was designed to demonstrate that he was not the person who delivered the substance to Officer Williams. The crux of his defense was that, for the last six or seven years, he had continually worn a beard. William Bauer testified to this fact, but had not seen defendant between March, 1978 and August, 1978. Defendant also testified to the fact, but for the relevant period of time, his testimony was completely uncorroborated. At defendant's post-trial hearing, however, his attorney attempted to introduce corroborating evidence. Defendant's driver's license, issued six days after the crime, clearly bore the photograph of a bearded man, but had not been introduced into evidence during the trial. As defense counsel did not allege that the license was not available or unknown at the time of trial, this evidence was not considered by the court.
In his amended petition for post-conviction relief, defendant alleged that his trial counsel was incompetent, ineffective, and frequently intoxicated. While a number of specific inadequacies were noted, the gravamen of the petition was the failure to corroborate defendant's testimony regarding his beard. It was defendant's burden to prove this allegation and the determination of the trial court must be upheld unless manifestly erroneous. People v. Bracey (1972), 51 Ill.2d 514, 283 N.E.2d 685.
At his evidentiary hearing, defendant produced both witnesses and affidavits from potential witnesses who indicated that they could corroborate his testimony concerning his beard. Bruno Scordo, the owner of the night club outside of which the drug transaction took place, testified that he had never seen defendant clean shaven, and that defendant had a beard of one to one and one-half inches on June 21, 1978. Cathy Taylor testified that she saw defendant almost every day in June, 1978, and he always wore a beard approximately one-inch long. Frankie Jacobs, defendant's sister, testified that defendant had always worn a beard and had one on June 21, 1978. These witnesses, Robert Drucker and Ernest Washington, all alleged that they were able to testify at trial that defendant had a beard on June 21, 1978, or thereabouts, but they were not contacted by defendant's attorney.
Defendant testified that he gave his lawyer a list of witnesses, with addresses, three weeks before trial. The witnesses included, among others, Dick Brewer, Bill Bush, Robert Drucker, Frankie Jacobs, Bruno Scordo, and Ernest Washington. Four weeks before trial, defendant had informed his attorney about his driver's license. Trial counsel testified that defendant informed him of several witnesses a week or two before trial, but he could not recall their names or number. He indicated that defendant provided their telephone numbers, and that he personally attempted to telephone some of the witnesses, but was unsuccessful in reaching them. The attorney stated that he "got the word out" to his contacts in the black community, had his secretary place some calls, and had Prince Chandler, who at the time ran an establishment called the Psychedelic, attempt to contact the witnesses. Counsel did not know whether Chandler ever contacted anyone.
This was the extent of defense counsel's effort to contact witnesses. He explained that he felt the witnesses were being uncooperative and found his attempts to contact them a "very frustrating experience." When asked if he therefore was forced to subpoena the witnesses, he replied that he did not know as he had disposed of defendant's file sometime after the trial. The reality of the matter is that he did not subpoena any witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Melgoza
...could have been used at his competency hearing before his aggravated battery trial. Defendant cites People v. Corder (1982), 103 Ill.App.3d 434, 438, 59 Ill.Dec. 200, 431 N.E.2d 701, where the court found ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to interview potential wit......
-
People v. Hebein
...testimony--is not incompetence per se (People v. Ellis (1976), 39 Ill.App.3d 373, 350 N.E.2d 326) and, in People v. Corder (1982), 103 Ill.App.3d 434, 59 Ill.Dec. 200, 431 N.E.2d 701, the case relied upon by defendant, there was a showing that the evidence which trial counsel failed to proc......
-
People v. Young
...particularly when the witnesses are known to trial counsel and their testimony may be exonerating. (People v. Corder (1982), 103 Ill.App.3d 434, 438, 59 Ill.Dec. 200, 431 N.E.2d 701; People v. Greer (1980), 79 Ill.2d 103, 123, 37 Ill.Dec. 313, 402 N.E.2d 203.) However, defendant must demons......
-
People v. Withers
...N.E.2d 679; People v. Pendleton (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 1104, 1109, 60 Ill.Dec. 838, 433 N.E.2d 1076; People v. Corder (1982), 103 Ill.App.3d 434, 437, 59 Ill.Dec. 200, 431 N.E.2d 701. III. Defendant maintains that because the separate acts upon which armed robbery and armed violence convict......