People v. Madej, 77167

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: McMORROW
• Citation: 177 Ill.2d 116,685 N.E.2d 908,226 Ill.Dec. 453
• Parties: , 226 Ill.Dec. 453 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Gregory MADEJ, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 77167,77167
• Decision Date: 19 June 1997

Page 908

685 N.E.2d 908 177 Ill.2d 116, 226 Ill.Dec. 453 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Gregory MADEJ, Appellant. No. 77167. Supreme Court of Illinois. June 19, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1997.

Page 912

[226 Ill.Dec. 457] [177 Ill.2d 123] Cook County Public Defender, Robert P. Isaacson, Assistant Public Defender, Chicago, Christina M. Tchen, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Chicago, James F. Martin, Chicago, for Gregory Madej.

Jack O'Malley, State's Attorney Cook County, Jim Ryan, Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Div., Judy L. DeAngelis, Assistant State's Attorney, Chicago, for the People.

JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Gregory Madej, was convicted of murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-1(a)(1)), felony murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-1(a)(3)), rape (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 11-1), deviate sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 11-3), and armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 18-2). The circuit court sentenced defendant to death on the murder and felony murder convictions. On direct appeal, this court affirmed defendant's convictions and

Page 913

[226 Ill.Dec. 458] sentences. People v. Madej, 106 Ill.2d 201, 88 Ill.Dec. 77, 478 N.E.2d 392 (1985). The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. Madej v. Illinois, 474 U.S. 935, 106 S.Ct. 268, 88 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1038, 106 S.Ct. 608, 88 L.Ed.2d 586 (1985).

Defendant thereafter filed a pro se petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 122-1 et seq.). His attorney filed an amended petition several years later. The circuit court dismissed the amended petition without an evidentiary hearing, and this appeal followed. 134 Ill.2d R. 651. We now affirm the order of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

Barbara Doyle's naked body was found in an alley [177 Ill.2d 124] on the north side of Chicago in the early morning hours of August 23, 1981. She had been stabbed and slashed approximately 34 times. A post-mortem examination revealed the presence of numerous abrasions over various parts of her body. Semen was found in her vagina and rectum.

At approximately 5 a.m. on the day in question, two Chicago police officers observed defendant drive through a posted stop sign on Wilson Avenue in Chicago. The officers signalled for defendant to pull over. Instead of stopping, defendant accelerated and proceeded to lead the officers on a high-speed chase. Several other police cars joined in the chase as defendant sped through red lights in excess of 80 miles per hour. Defendant eventually drove into an alley, where he tried unsuccessfully to escape on foot. When the officers arrested defendant, his hands, head, shirt, pants and undershorts were covered with blood. The automobile, which was later determined to be Barbara's, was likewise stained with blood, mostly in the area of the passenger's seat. Upon searching the vehicle, police officers recovered a large knife as well as Barbara's jeans and blouse, both of which were saturated with blood.

At the police station, defendant explained to the officers that he had been drinking at the Garage Inn tavern until 2:20 a.m., at which time he was thrown out for disorderly conduct. He then met a friend named "Hojamoto," who was driving Barbara's car. When defendant got into the vehicle to go "cruising," he noticed that Hojamoto was wearing a bloody shirt. Hojamoto told defendant that he had been in a gang fight. Defendant then switched seats with Hojamoto, who jumped from the vehicle during the high-speed chase with the police.

Police subsequently charged defendant with the murder of Barbara Doyle and other felonies. Prior to [177 Ill.2d 125] trial, defendant waived his right to have a jury determine his guilt or innocence.

At trial, Barbara's estranged husband, David Doyle, testified that he and Barbara were drinking at the Garage Inn tavern until 2:15 a.m. The two left the bar and fell asleep in Barbara's car. When he woke up, David noticed that defendant was in the driver's seat, and it appeared to him that Barbara and defendant knew each other. Defendant drove to the Golden Flame restaurant, where he and Barbara went inside. David, meanwhile, walked home alone.

A waitress from the Golden Flame restaurant testified that she served coffee to Barbara and defendant around 3:15 a.m. Another witness testified that he saw defendant "tinkering" with Barbara's car in an alley approximately 25 minutes later.

James Bunker, who knew defendant socially, also testified on behalf of the State. Bunker told the court that he was at a party with defendant on the night before Barbara's murder. According to Bunker, defendant had taken a "Buck-type knife" from another person at the party. In court, Bunker identified the knife which police recovered from Barbara's car as the knife defendant had taken the night before. Bunker further testified that "Hojamoto" was a fictitious name commonly used by defendant and friends as a form of greeting. In fact, defendant had in the past referred to Bunker as "Hojamoto," and vice versa. When asked why the group used the name, Bunker responded, "[It was] just like a greeting, you know * * *. How are you doing? Moto."

Page 914

[226 Ill.Dec. 459] Defendant testified on his own behalf. In contrast to his original statement to the police, at trial defendant claimed that he had killed Barbara only after she drew a knife on him during a drug deal that had gone awry. Defendant explained to the court that he had been drinking alcohol and ingesting drugs throughout the [177 Ill.2d 126] day. When he arrived at the Garage Inn tavern, he noticed Barbara, whom he had previously known, sitting at the bar with her husband. Barbara and her husband later left the tavern. Defendant, meanwhile, continued to drink until he was thrown out for disorderly behavior. He then approached Barbara's vehicle, and she asked him if he would like to smoke some marijuana. The two of them proceeded to get "high," and they later drove to the Golden Flame restaurant. Upon leaving the restaurant, they smoked more marijuana and stopped three times to purchase liquor. According to defendant, he had by that time consumed at least two cases of beer, drank some whiskey, smoked one ounce of marijuana, ingested 10 quaaludes, and injected Talwin.

Defendant further testified that he and Barbara stopped twice to engage in consensual sexual relations. Afterwards, Barbara asked defendant if he would sell her some marijuana. He agreed, and placed seven one-ounce bags of marijuana on the vehicle's console. After paying for one of the bags, Barbara attempted to steal two more. A struggle ensued, and she eventually brandished a knife and began attacking him. At some point in the struggle, defendant gained control of the knife and began stabbing Barbara, realizing what he was doing only after he saw that she was bleeding from her chest. He then removed Barbara's body from the car and sounded the car's horn (apparently in an attempt to summon help). He drove to a friend's house, but left when no one answered the door. Defendant next recalled being chased by the police, but could not remember anything else other than being taken into custody.

At the close of the evidence, the circuit court found defendant guilty of all charges. On the following day, the court ruled that defendant was eligible for the death penalty (720 ILCS 5/9-1(b)(6)(c) (West 1994) (commission [177 Ill.2d 127] of first degree murder in the course of another felony)) and that the evidence in mitigation did not outweigh the aggravating factors. Accordingly, the court imposed a sentence of death. This court affirmed that decision on direct appeal. People v. Madej, 106 Ill.2d 201, 88 Ill.Dec. 77, 478 N.E.2d 392 (1985).

ANALYSIS

The matter is now before this court on dismissal of defendant's amended petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 1992)). A post-conviction action is a collateral attack on a prior conviction and sentence. People v. Mahaffey, 165 Ill.2d 445, 452, 209 Ill.Dec. 246, 651 N.E.2d 174 (1995). The scope of the proceeding is limited to constitutional matters which have not been, nor could have been, previously adjudicated. People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill.2d 355, 370, 215 Ill.Dec. 164, 662 N.E.2d 1304 (1996). Any issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are waived (People v. Ruiz, 132 Ill.2d 1, 9, 138 Ill.Dec. 201, 547 N.E.2d 170 (1989)) and any issues which have already been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (People v. Silagy, 116 Ill.2d 357, 365, 107 Ill.Dec. 677, 507 N.E.2d 830 (1987)). In addition, a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the allegations set forth in the petition, as supported by the trial record or accompanying affidavits, show that a constitutional right has been violated. People v. Caballero, 126 Ill.2d 248, 259, 128 Ill.Dec. 1, 533 N.E.2d 1089 (1989). In making that determination, all well-pleaded facts in the petition and affidavits are to be taken as true. Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 259, 128 Ill.Dec. 1, 533 N.E.2d 1089. Upon review of a dismissal of a petition without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill.2d 355, 370-71, 215 Ill.Dec. 164, 662 N.E.2d 1304 (1996).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During Sentencing

A. Failure to Present Mitigating Evidence

Defendant first argues that he was denied effective [177 Ill.2d 128] assistance of counsel during the aggravation

Page 915

[226 Ill.Dec. 460] /mitigation phase of the sentencing hearing due to his attorney's failure to investigate potential mitigating evidence prior to trial. According to...