People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 02 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 50830,50901 and 51044,s. 50830 |
| Parties | , 37 Ill.Dec. 267 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Charles ROBINSON, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Joe ISHMAN et al., Appellees. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Nick Charles FREEMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Robert J. Agostinelli, Deputy State App. Defender and Gary R. Garretson, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for appellant Robinson.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, and Clyde L. Kuehn, State's Atty., Belleville , for the People.
John H. Reid, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for appellees Ishman et al.
Richard J. Wilson, Deputy State App. Defender and Donald T. McDougall, Asst. State App. Defender, Springfield, for appellant Freeman.
These consolidated cases present the question whether alleged conflicts of interests on the part of their public defender trial attorneys served to deprive defendants of the effective assistance of counsel.
In cause No. 50830, defendant Charles Robinson and Beverly Wilder were charged, by information, in the circuit court of Will County, with the burglary (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 19-1) of a tavern. Following their arraignment, Alex Bonds, a part-time Will County public defender, was assigned to represent Robinson. Bonds disclosed that in the previous year his private law firm had represented James Witt in the purchase of the tavern business allegedly burglarized by defendant. Although Bonds no longer had any professional relationship with Witt, the latter still owed some portion of his attorney's fee. After being informed by the circuit court of the possible conflict of interest, Robinson agreed to accept representation by another assistant public defender. Wilder's motion for severance was allowed.
The evidence adduced at trial showed that at about 4:25 a. m. police found defendant and Wilder, who had gained entry through a broken window, inside the tavern preparing to remove several bottles of liquor and a television set. Witt testified that as the lessee of the tavern he had not given defendant authority to be in the tavern after closing. Defendant was found guilty of burglary and sentenced to the penitentiary.
The appellate court rejected defendant's contention that a per se conflict of interest extended to all members of the public defender's staff because of Bonds' prior representation of the burglary victim, and affirmed the judgment. (People v. Robinson (1978), 59 Ill.App.3d 514, 16 Ill.Dec. 709, 375 N.E.2d 582.) We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal.
In cause No. 50901, defendants Joe Ishman and Reginald Bogay, and Sherwin Haywood, were indicted in the circuit court of St. Clair County for the murder of an employee of the P & K Wholesale House. A witness who was a customer in the wholesale house at the time of the shooting testified that three young men, two of whom were armed, entered the premises and demanded money. After a brief scuffle between an employee and one of the robbers, the robber's pistol fired, fatally wounding the employee. The St. Clair County public defender was appointed to represent the three defendants and assigned separate assistant public defenders to represent defendants Ishman and Bogay; the public defender himself represented Haywood. Ishman's motion to sever his trial because of "irreconcilable differences" in the three men's defenses was granted. A severance was also granted to Haywood who was later acquitted.
At his trial Bogay testified that he, Ishman, and Haywood had planned the robbery of the wholesale house, but that on entering the building he decided to withdraw from the crime. Ishman, according to Bogay, took Bogay's pistol and pushed him forward. Bogay said he then fled, hearing the fatal shot as he left. As he ran toward Ishman's car, Bogay was struck by buckshot fired by another employee of the wholesale house.
Ishman, who was arrested while attempting to use a credit card issued to one of the robbery victims, gave police a statement admitting his involvement in the robbery and implicating Bogay. In the statement, later introduced at trial, Ishman said that he remained near the door of the wholesale house while Bogay, carrying a pistol, and Haywood, with a sawed-off shotgun, approached the two men inside the business. During his trial, however, Ishman repudiated the statement, testifying that he signed it only after being beaten and threatened by the police. Ishman testified that he had bought the credit card from Bogay on the street for $20 and denied any knowledge of the robbery or murder.
In separate jury trials, Bogay and Ishman were found guilty of murder and sentenced to the penitentiary. The cases were consolidated on appeal, and the appellate court reversed the convictions, remanding for new trials at which defendants were to be represented by counsel other than the public defender. (People v. Ishman (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 517, 18 Ill.Dec. 715, 378 N.E.2d 179.) The appellate court reasoned that because of the defendants' adverse interests (each attempted to shift culpability to the other), the public defender could not fully exercise his independent professional judgment on behalf of each defendant. The court said, too, that the possibility of a conflict of interest was not obviated by the public defender's assignment of separate assistants to represent the defendants. We allowed the People's petition for leave to appeal.
Defendant Nick Freeman (cause No. 51044) and his codefendant, James Winston, were charged by information in the circuit court of Champaign County with the armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 18-2) of a bookstore. The public defender of Champaign County was appointed to represent both Freeman and Winston. He personally undertook Freeman's representation and assigned an assistant public defender to represent Winston.
At trial a sales clerk at the bookstore testified that two men, one armed with a shotgun and the other with a pistol, entered the store and ordered him to open the cash register and a display case containing change. One of the men wore a ski mask, the other a nylon stocking over his head. The attendant identified Freeman as being the robber whose face was covered by the nylon stocking. Another witness, a resident of the neighborhood where the bookstore was located, testified that he noticed an unfamiliar car in the area at the time of the robbery and saw two men run from the bookstore. The men were running in a "military fashion," ducking down, weaving and hiding. He reported to the police the license number of the car, which was later found in a trailer park. One of the investigating officers testified that a recent snowfall enabled him to track a set of footprints from the car to a shed, where he found a toy pistol and a shotgun of the type used in the bookstore robbery. The officer testified that another set of footprints led from the car to the trailer where he saw Freeman, Winston and two women. In the trailer he found a pair of shoes which matched one set of footprints. The shoes were damp on the bottom and had water on the edges. For reasons not clear from the record, Freeman was not arrested until two days later. The officer testified further that he read Freeman his "rights" from a "Miranda Warning Card" and while questioning him he admitted to the armed robbery but remained silent as to his accomplice's identity. Neither Freeman nor Winston testified at trial.
The jury found Freeman guilty of armed robbery; Winston was acquitted. The appellate court held that although both defendants were represented by one entity (the public defender), their defenses were not antagonistic and the errors allegedly stemming from the joint representation were not prejudicial, and affirmed. (People v. Freeman (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 794, 799, 17 Ill.Dec. 917, 377 N.E.2d 107.) We allowed defendant Freeman's petition for leave to appeal.
Simply stated, the question here presented is whether the individual attorneys employed in the office of a public defender are members of an entity subject to the generally recognized rule that if an attorney is disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest that no other partner or associate of his firm may continue with the representation. (People v. Fife (1979), 76 Ill.2d 418, 425, 30 Ill.Dec. 300, 392 N.E.2d 1345; Laskey Bros. of W. Va., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. (2d Cir. 1955), 224 F.2d 824, 826-27; ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 5-105(D) (1969).) Although recognizing the general applicability of the rule, the People argue that because of their significant differences from private law firms the same rule should not apply to public defenders' offices. They argue that the individual attorneys in the public defender's office owe no duty to the office, but only to the individual defendants they represent. Also, the People note, the structure of public defender offices is often dissimilar to private law offices. This State has no statewide public defender system (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 34, par. 5601 et seq.), and there are substantial differences in the organization of public defenders' offices throughout the State; in at least one county the "office" of public defender exists in title only, with the individual attorneys being but nominally members of the same office. In such a county, the People contend, any analogy between the public defender's "office" and a private law firm is completely invalid.
Even if an appearance of impropriety exists because of the representation of adverse interests by the public defender's office, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards
... ... See People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 402 N.E.2d 157 (1979). The defendant has not demonstrated how the continued representation of Rhodes ... ...
-
Austin v. State
... ... witness was represented by one member of a law firm and the defendant by another member of the same firm, an Illinois court stated (People v. Dace, 153 Ill.App.3d 891, 896, 106 Ill.Dec. 625, 628, 506 N.E.2d 332, 335, app. denied, 116 Ill.2d 565, 113 Ill.Dec. 307, 515 N.E.2d 116 (1987)): ... See generally, e.g., People v. Nelson, 82 Ill.2d 67, 74-75, 44 Ill.Dec. 292, 296, 411 N.E.2d 261, 265 (1980); People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 155-160, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 261-263, 402 N.E.2d 157, 161-163 (1979); State v. Bell, 90 N.J. 163, 167-171, 447 A.2d 525, 527-529 ... ...
-
Graves v. State
... ... People v. Superior Court, 94 Cal.App.3d 626, 629 n. 3, 156 Cal.Rptr. 487 (1979) (Although this case involved a law firm acting as public defender, the court ... In People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 402 N.E.2d 157, 161 (Ill.1979), the court refused to conclude that a public defender's office is a "firm." The ... ...
-
State v. McKinley
... ... there is no distinction between indigent defendants and nonindigent defendants.); People v. Harlan, 54 P.3d 871, 878 (Colo.2002) (A defendant's desire for continued representation by a court-appointed public defender is entitled to great ... Id. at 953 (quoting People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 402 N.E.2d 157, 162 (1979) ). These decisions are persuasive and should be followed. The concerns outlined by these ... ...
-
Notices
...of conflicts. See Bolin v. State, 137 P.3d 136, 145 (Wyo. 2006); State v. Bell, 447 A.2d 525, 529 (N.J. 1982); People v. Robinson, 402 N.E.2d 157, 162 (Ill. 1979); State v. Cook, 171 P.3d 1282, 1292 (Idaho App. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals looked at an imputed conflict situa......
-
Notices
...of conflicts. See Bolin v. State, 137 P.3d 136, 145 (Wyo. 2006); State v. Bell, 447 A.2d 525, 529 (N.J. 1982); People v. Robinson, 402 N.E.2d 157,162 (IU. 1979); State v. Cook, 171 P.3d 1282, 1292 (Idaho App. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals looked at an imputed conflict situati......
-
Notices
...of conflicts. See Bolin v. State, 137 P.3d 136, 145 (Wyo. 2006); State v. Bell, 447 A.2d 525, 529 (N.J. 1982); People v. Robinson, 402 N.E.2d 157, 162 (Ill. 1979); State v. Cook, 171 P.3d 1282, 1292 (Idaho App. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals looked at an imputed conflict situa......
-
Notices
...of conflicts. See Bolin v. State, 137 P.3d 136, 145 (Wyo. 2006); State v. Bell, 447 A.2d 525, 529 (N.J. 1982); People v. Robinson, 402 N.E.2d 157, 162 (Ill. 1979); State v. Cook, 171 P.3d 1282, 1292 (Idaho App. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals looked at an imputed conflict situa......