People v. Morris, Docket No. 1–11–1251.

• Decision Date: 01 November 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. 1–11–1251.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Herbert MORRIS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2013 IL App (1st) 111251

997 N.E.2d 847

375 Ill.Dec. 536

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Herbert MORRIS, Defendant–Appellant.

Docket No. 1–11–1251.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Sept. 30, 2013.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 2013

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Philip D. Payne, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Yvette Loizon, and Lori M. Rosen, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Presiding Justice GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Herbert Morris was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections for the first-degree murder of Clinton Cavin, who was found dead hours after engaging in an argument with defendant on the morning of November 15, 2006. At trial, witnesses testified that defendant's then-girlfriend, Sharon Smith, left her home early that morning to drive to Iowa, and before she left, she asked Cavin, who lived in the basement, to watch her house while she was gone. This request angered defendant, who frequently spent time at Sharon's house. Defendant then slapped Sharon and demanded that Cavin leave, and defendant later threatened to cut the throats of Sharon's teenage son, Abel Smith, and his friend, Harold Jackson, who also lived in the house.

¶ 2 Later that morning, Harold and his friend, William Alston, observed defendant leave the house and return 15 minutes later with a knife. They locked the front door and left the house through the side door to walk to a nearby gas station, and when they returned two minutes later, they observed defendant down the street walking away from the house. Inside, they observed a bloody shovel leaning against the wall, and then discovered Cavin dead in the basement. William called the police, and defendant was arrested at his parents' house.

¶ 3 Upon his arrest, the police observed bloodstains on defendant's clothing and boots, and forensic scientists later tested samples of the bloodstains and determined that they matched Cavin's DNA profile. The blood recovered from the shovel also matched Cavin's DNA profile, and a palm print recovered from the handle of the shovel matched defendant's prints. An expert in forensic pathology examined Cavin's autopsy files and opined that Cavin's death was a homicide, having died as a result of blunt-force trauma to the head.

¶ 4 On this direct appeal, defendant claims, first, that his conviction should be reversed and remanded for a new trial because defendant was deprived of his right to due process and a fair trial by three related chain-of-custody errors: (1) the trial court admitted defendant's bloodstained pants and boots into evidence despite the State's failure to establish a chain of custody; (2) that the assistant public defender provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial by not introducing defendant's hospital belongings list into evidence to show that defendant's boots were not seized at that time; and (3) the trial court prohibited the defense from presenting a still shot from a videotape of an unidentified officer seizing the boots in an interrogation room at the police station. Second, defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the State to present testimony that defendant had made threatening remarks to Abel and Harold the morning of the homicide. Third, defendant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the State's fingerprint analysis. Despite being represented by counsel on appeal, defendant has also filed a pro se supplemental appellate brief raising numerous additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court errors at the suppression hearing and at trial. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 I. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 7 Prior to trial, defendant was represented by the public defender. On October 7, 2008, the defense filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence due to a lack of probable cause. A suppression hearing was held on March 30, 2009, and the trial court heard testimony from defendant's mother, Beverly Morris, and two arresting police officers, Daniel O'Connor and Deronis Cooper. Beverly testified that, on November 15, 2006, one officer knocked on her door and asked about her son, while another officer pushed past her and entered her house without her consent and without a search or arrest warrant. The officers then went upstairs and arrested defendant. Officers O'Connor and Cooper both testified that they had received a flash message ¹ that described defendant as a murder suspect and that he lived at his parents' house, and that Beverly had given them permission to enter her home. After arguments, the trial court denied defendant's motion, finding: (1) that defendant's mother consented to the search of her house prior to defendant's arrest; (2) that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest defendant based on the information they had at the time; and (3) that the arresting officers were justified in searching the home without a warrant due to exigent circumstances.

¶ 8 At the next hearing, on June 10, 2009, defendant informed the trial court that he wanted to proceed pro se, and the trial court ordered a behavioral clinical examination, in which a doctor opined that defendant was fit to represent himself. After a 30–day continuance, the trial court found defendant fit to stand trial, admonished defendant of his rights to self-representation, and allowed the assistant public defender to withdraw.

¶ 9 As a pro se litigant, defendant attempted to file a second motion to suppress evidence on January 28, 2010. In his motion, defendant argued that, after he was arrested in his parents' home, the police should have obtained a search warrant from a magistrate judge prior to seizing two knives in the house along with defendant's clothing. Defendant further argued that the assistant public defender was ineffective for failing to make this argument at the prior suppression hearing. The trial court advised defendant that he could not litigate the issue a second time because the trial court already ruled on the merits of defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. In response, defendant explained that the public defender “provided ineffective assistance of counsel” because she “suppressed” evidence that showed that she counseled the police officers to perjure themselves at defendant's suppression hearing. The trial court declined to consider defendant's pro se motion, explaining that his allegations were appellate issues and that defendant could raise those issues on appeal.

¶ 10 Afterward, defendant requested counsel, and the assistant public defender was reappointed on March 3, 2010. Despite being represented by counsel, defendant filed a pro se motion in limine concerning ineffective assistance of this same counsel at the suppression hearing. The trial court advised defendant that he may not file a motion when he is represented by an attorney, and defendant requested to proceed pro se a second time. The trial court again admonished the defendant and again excused the same assistant public defender. Defendant then argued a pro se motion in limine, claiming that the police did not have probable cause to enter his parents' home and arrest him, and that the assistant public defender was ineffective because she “suppressed” the arrest report and did not call the officer who issued the flash message to testify at the suppression hearing. Following arguments, the trial court denied defendant's pro se motion, finding that the trial court had already ruled on the probable cause issue in defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Defendant noted for the record that he disagreed with the trial court's ruling.

¶ 11 At the next court date, on May 27, 2010, defendant filed a pro se “Motion in Limine Regarding Knowing Use of False or Perjured Testimony Constituting a Denial of Due Process in Response to Court Order Whether Pro–Se Defendant is Ready for Trial.” Defendant explained that he had uncovered new evidence that the assistant State's attorney violated defendant's constitutional due process rights when she knowingly presented false testimony from Officer Cooper at the suppression hearing. Also, defendant's pro se motion argues that the assistant public defender provided ineffective assistance of counsel because she continued to ask Cooper misleading questions, despite knowing that he had testified falsely.² The case was continued so that defendant could file an answer to discovery, and at the next court appearance, defendant requested counsel.

¶ 12 On June 30, 2010, the trial court reappointed the same assistant public defender a third time. Defendant objected to the appointment and informed the trial court that he had a case pending against this assistant public defender in federal court. The trial court asked defendant about the nature of the federal case, and defendant explained that he had sued this assistant public defender for “fabrication of statements in a sworn affidavit.” Specifically, defendant alleged that, at the suppression hearing, his counsel fabricated the evidence in “the complaint that was signed by the officer that made the 911 call” because the officer that wrote the complaint was not called to testify. The assistant public defender explained that defendant may have confused the arrest report with the general offense case report, which were prepared by different police officers. The arresting officer testified at the suppression hearing that he was not aware of certain facts that were reported in the general offense case report, which contained more detailed information about defendant's arrest. The assistant public defender explained that defe...