People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-11-0964,4-11-0964 |
| Citation | 2013 IL App (4th) 110964 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCUS TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
¶ 1 Held: (1) Defendant's statement he would have accepted the State's plea offer but for defense counsel's inadequate advice does not establish prejudice for purposes of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim where no evidence of a plea offer was shown.
(2) The trial court did not err in dismissing defendant's postconviction petition at the second stage of the proceedings where the record shows it was defendant's own decision not to testify.
¶ 2 In December 2002, a jury found defendant, Marcus Taylor, guilty of home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12-11 (West 2002)) and attempt (murder) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1 (West 2002)). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive 20-year prison terms. On direct appeal, this court affirmed. People v. Taylor, No. 4-03-0067, slip order at 12 (Aug. 24, 2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In March 2011, defendant filed apostconviction petition, which the trial court dismissed during the second stage of the postconviction proceeding.
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing his petition where (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel during plea negotiations; (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that issue on direct appeal; (3) postconviction counsel provided less than a reasonable level of assistance by omitting that issue from the amended postconviction petition; and (4) he made a substantial showing regarding his trial counsel's ineffectiveness in advising him whether to testify. We affirm.
¶ 5 During defendant's December 2002 jury trial, Marcus Adams testified he was home at 1304 East William Street in Decatur on January 30, 2002, sitting on the couch, watching television with his brother Ira Adams and Ira's girlfriend, Sheena Brown. At some point Marcus fell asleep. Around 2:30 a.m. he was awakened when someone kicked in the door and began shooting. Marcus ducked behind the couch and scrambled for the bathroom. He never got a look at the intruders but estimated two or three guns were being fired based on the number of shots he heard. After the shooting stopped, he returned to the living room and found Ira lying by the front door, bleeding from a bullet wound to the neck. A pistol lay on the floor, near Ira's right hand. Ira was transported to the hospital and placed on life support. The State did not call him at trial because he was still incapacitated and on a ventilator.
¶ 6 Brown testified Ira grabbed a pistol, sprang from the couch, and ran toward the intruders, firing when they kicked in the door. The intruders were wearing black masks and black sweaters. Brown took cover in the bathroom. When Brown heard something fall, shecame out of the bathroom and saw Ira lying on the floor. Brown did not see any of the intruders' faces because they were wearing masks.
¶ 7 Jon Quell, a Decatur police officer, testified he was dispatched to Decatur Memorial Hospital at 3:18 a.m. on January 30, 2002, to investigate a gunshot victim named Marcus Taylor, i.e., defendant. Quell spoke with defendant, who had suffered "a gunshot wound to his right chest, [the bullet] enter[ing] on the right side [and] going superficially under the skin, approximately [one] to [two] inches." He asked defendant what happened. Defendant replied he was in the backyard of his mother's house at 1228 East Main Street, letting his dogs out, when he heard a couple of gunshots and realized he had been shot. Defendant saw no vehicles or persons. Ira Adams's house was two blocks away from defendant's mother's house. The doctor extracted the bullet from defendant's chest and gave it to Quell, who in turn gave it to the evidence custodian. Defendant told Quell when he was shot, he was wearing a black hoodie. He did not have the hoodie with him at the hospital but turned it over to the police later.
¶ 8 Ballistic analysis revealed the bullet came from the pistol Ira Adams used in the shootout, a semiautomatic .22-caliber pistol. The police found no shell casings outside Ira Adams's residence; all of the bullets and spent casings were inside the residence. The police collected particles from defendant's hands using strips of tape. Mary Wong, a forensic scientist, testified she analyzed the particles from these strips. Two unique microscopic particles associated with gunshot residue were found on one of defendant's hands. Only one such particle was found on his other hand. Because of the laboratory's policy of requiring a minimum of three particles on the same hand to support a finding of gunshot residue, Wong could not opine, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, defendant had discharged a firearm, nor could she rule itout.
¶ 9 After deliberating for 6 1/2 hours, the jury sent the trial court a note stating it was deadlocked. The court gave the jury a Prim instruction (People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62, 289 N.E.2d 601 (1972)) and ordered it to deliberate further. Three hours later, the jury found defendant guilty of both counts.
¶ 10 During defendant's January 10, 2003, sentencing hearing, defendant's trial counsel argued against consecutive sentences as follows:
¶ 11 In his statement in allocution, defendant remarked: "[My trial counsel,] Mr. Massey[,] just came and informed me 30 minutes before my sentencing that my charges, which the public defender nobody ever informed me of that and the state offered me a plea that I didn't accept, but I would reconsider something, thought about it different if I knew my charges would [run consecutively]."
¶ 12 Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to 20 years' imprisonment for home invasion and to another 20 years' imprisonment for attempt (murder), ordering the prison terms run consecutively, as required by statute, given the seriousness of Ira's bodily injury (see 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(a)(i) (West 2002)).
¶ 13 Defendant took a direct appeal, in which he made five arguments. First, he argued his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion for discharge onspeedy-trial grounds. People v. Taylor, No. 4-03-0067, slip order at 12 (Aug. 24, 2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We concluded such a motion would have been unmeritorious and his attorney therefore had not rendered ineffective assistance by refraining from filing such a motion. Id. at 32-33. Second, defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting the evidence of gunshot residue. Id. at 33. We held defendant forfeited that issue by failing to make an objection at trial. Id. Third, defendant argued his trial was unfair because, during a recess and before the time for deliberations, one juror was heard to remark to another juror he suspected the case was drug-related. Id. at 36. We found no prejudice from this misconduct, considering, in his opening statement, defendant's trial counsel himself suggested the shooting was drug-related (" 'a bullet whizzing through the night[,] in this rough, worn[-]down neighborhood where drugs, guns are prevalent' "). Id. Fourth, defendant argued the trial court had coerced a holdout juror by giving the Prim instruction instead of declaring a mistrial. Id. at 37. We found no abuse of discretion in the court giving the jury a Prim instruction and ordering the jury to deliberate further. Id. Fifth, defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Id. at 39. In rejecting that argument, this court reasoned as follows:
"[Defendant] offered an innocent explanation for having Ira Adams's bullet in his chest: he was standing in his mother's backyard at 2:30 a.m., when, two blocks away, Ira Adams pointed a small-caliber pistol out the front door of his house (in such a way that the spent casing was ejected into the interior of the house), and fired a round. The .22-caliber bullet sailed over the roofs of houses and through the
branches of trees (shown in the aerial photograph), came down, and struck [defendant] precisely where he stood, punching through his black hooded sweatshirt and burrowing two inches through his flesh.
The jury did not have to accept that explanation. It is unclear from the record that such a small-caliber bullet could do that sort of damage at a distance of two blocks—or that the trajectory that [defendant] postulates was physically possible. Given our deferential standard of review, we find the evidence to be sufficient to support the conviction." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 39-40.
¶ 14 On March 4, 2011, defendant filed an amended petition for postconviction relief. One of the claims in defendant's amended petition was his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to explain to defendant the necessity he testify on his own behalf during trial.
¶ 15 According to the amended petition, supported by his own affidavit, defendant originally planned to testify. However, after his mother and brother testified and after an inmate in the county jail told him he could hurt his...
To continue reading
Request your trial