People v. Eddmonds

• Decision Date: 20 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. 66488,66488
• Citation: 143 Ill.2d 501,161 Ill.Dec. 306,578 N.E.2d 952
• Parties: , 161 Ill.Dec. 306 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Durlyn EDDMONDS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 952

578 N.E.2d 952

143 Ill.2d 501, 161 Ill.Dec. 306

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Durlyn EDDMONDS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

No. 66488.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 20, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1991.

Jack O'Malley, State's Atty. Cook Co., Crim. Appeals Div., Marie Quinlivan Czech, Spec. Asst. State's Atty., Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Crim. App. Div., Chicago, for people.

Cook County Public Defender, Richard E. Cunningham, Asst. Public Defender, Chicago, for Durlyn Eddmonds.

Justice BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Durlyn Eddmonds, was convicted of murder and deviate sexual assault following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County. At the death penalty hearing requested by the State, the court, sitting without a jury, determined that one or more of the aggravating factors set forth in section 9-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)) was present and that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude a sentence of death. The court sentenced the defendant to death for the murder conviction and to 40 to 80 years' imprisonment for the deviate sexual assault conviction. The defendant appealed directly to this court, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine his fitness to stand trial and that his counsel was ineffective at the sentencing hearing. This court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence. (People v. Eddmonds (1984), 101 Ill.2d 44, 77 Ill.Dec. 724, 461 N.E.2d 347.) The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. Eddmonds v. Illinois (1984), 469 U.S. 894, 105 S.Ct. 271, 83 L.Ed.2d 207.

The defendant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 122-1 et seq.), alleging that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel (1) failed to investigate his fitness to stand trial and failed to request a fitness hearing before trial and (2) failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. The State moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the fitness issue had been decided on direct appeal and that defendant's counsel was not ineffective at the sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the State's motion to dismiss and ordered an evidentiary hearing. After hearing evidence and considering arguments of the parties, the trial court denied post-conviction relief. The defendant then filed a motion to vacate the order denying post-conviction relief. The trial court granted the petitioner's motion, vacated the defendant's death sentence, and ordered a hearing to determine whether the petitioner was fit to be sentenced at the time the death penalty hearing was held. The State appealed directly to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 651 (134 Ill.2d R. 651), and the defendant cross-appealed.

The Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides a remedy to criminal defendants who claim that substantial violations of their constitutional rights occurred in their trial. (People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill.2d 357, 365, 107 Ill.Dec. 677, 507 N.E.2d 830.) A post-conviction proceeding is not an appeal per se, but a collateral attack upon a final judgment. (People v. Albanese (1988), 125 Ill.2d 100, 104, 125 Ill.Dec. 838, 531 N.E.2d 17.) The purpose of a post-conviction proceeding is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to inquire into constitutional issues which have not been, and could not have been, previously adjudicated. (People v. Gaines (1984), 105 Ill.2d 79, 87, 85 Ill.Dec. 269, 473 N.E.2d 868.) In a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that a substantial constitutional violation occurred at trial. People v. Griffin (1985), 109 Ill.2d 293, 303, 93 Ill.Dec. 774, 487 N.E.2d 599.

As stated, the defendant raised two constitutional claims in his post-conviction petition. First, he argued that his conviction should be reversed because his counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the defendant's competency to stand trial and failing to request a hearing to determine his competency. Second, the defendant claimed that his death sentence must be reversed because his counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present certain mitigating evidence at the capital sentencing proceeding. The trial court determined that the defendant was entitled to post-conviction relief on the first claim but denied him any relief on the second claim.

I

We first consider whether the trial court erred in holding that the defendant was entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the defendant's competency to stand trial. In Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, the Supreme Court formulated a two-part test for evaluating whether or not a defendant has been given the effective assistance of counsel. This test has been adopted and applied by this court. (People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill.2d 504, 526, 85 Ill.Dec. 441, 473 N.E.2d 1246.) Under Strickland, a defendant must first demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient, in that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." ( Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693.) In addition to proving incompetence, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's deficient performance substantially prejudiced his defense. To demonstrate prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that "but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698.

The defendant contends that his trial counsel's performance at trial was deficient in that he failed to discover evidence relating to the defendant's fitness to stand trial. Specifically, the defendant claims that his counsel was incompetent in failing to discover that the defendant took psychotropic medication for six months while awaiting trial, but did not take medication at the time of trial. The defendant also claims that his counsel was incompetent in neglecting to discover that the defendant was diagnosed as schizophrenic in 1973. He also notes that his counsel never requested a fitness hearing because he mistakenly believed that a hearing had already been held. The defendant claims that his counsel's performance was so deficient that he was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed by the sixth amendment.

Both prongs of the Strickland test must be satisfied before a defendant can prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. As the Supreme Court noted in Strickland, however, a court need not consider whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. (Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d at 699.) If the ineffective-assistance claim can be disposed of on the ground that the defendant did not suffer sufficient prejudice, the court need not decide whether counsel's errors were serious enough to constitute less than reasonably effective assistance. (See People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill.2d 176, 201, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124; People v. Gaines (1984), 105 Ill.2d 79, 92-93, 85 Ill.Dec. 269, 473 N.E.2d 868.) We find here that we need not consider the petitioner's claim that his trial counsel failed to investigate the fitness question. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner's trial counsel was deficient in failing to discover the additional evidence which the petitioner now raises. The only question we need consider is whether the defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged deficiencies within the meaning of Strickland.

The petitioner claims that he suffered prejudice because the trial court would have ordered a hearing to determine whether he was fit to stand trial, had it been appraised of the additional evidence raised in the post-conviction petition. A defendant is entitled to a pretrial hearing to determine whether he is fit only when a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness to stand trial or be sentenced is raised. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 1005-2-1.) A defendant is presumed to be fit to stand trial. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 1005-2-1(a).) A defendant is considered unfit to stand trial if, because of a mental or physical condition, he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 1005-2-1(a).) Thus, to establish that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged incompetency, the petitioner must demonstrate that facts existed at the time of his trial which raised a bona fide doubt of his ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings and to assist in his defense. The petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief on his ineffective-assistance claim only if he shows that the trial court would have found a bona fide doubt of his fitness and ordered a fitness hearing if it had been informed of the evidence raised in his post-conviction petition.

The trial court considered the evidence introduced at the post-conviction proceeding and determined that it did not raise a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness for trial. Our analysis of the trial court's ruling on this question is complicated by the fact that the court granted the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief, even though it specifically refused to find that there was a bona fide doubt of petitioner's fitness for trial. When counsel for the defendant pointed out that the fitness statute called for a hearing only when...