People v. Dickerson

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2009 » People v. Dickerson

People v. Dickerson

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-08-0061 Rel

Case Date: 07/22/2009

Preview:No. 3--08--0061 Filed July 22, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOBBY L. DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) No. 05--CF--1 ) ) ) Honorable Stuart P. Borden, Judge, Presiding. ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Stark County, Illinois

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Bobby Dickerson, was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge utilized the wrong legal standard when he conducted an inquiry into his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by information with delivery of a controlled substance. The information alleged that defendant

delivered between 1 and 15 grams of cocaine to Robert Drummond. During the bench trial, Drummond testified that he was an

Illinois State Police agent assigned to the Peoria Metropolitan Enforcement Group (MEG). narcotic transactions. His duties included conducting undercover On September 30, 2004, Drummond went to a

residence in Toulon, Illinois, and spoke with a confidential informant who lived there. surveillance of the house. The informant made a phone call and then he and Drummond went out to the backyard to wait for someone to arrive. Approximately 25 minutes later, defendant arrived, along with his son. The defendant Several other MEG officers conducted

stated he was not comfortable outside, so everyone went inside the house. At the defendant's request, the defendant, Drummond, and the Defendant's son stayed in the

informant all went into the bathroom. living room area.

While inside the bathroom, defendant asked Drummond if he was with the police, and Drummond replied that he was not. Defendant gave Drummond three bags of suspected crack cocaine, and Drummond gave defendant $150. left the house. Peoria County Deputy Charlie Rodgers testified that he was a MEG officer and that he conducted a surveillance of the first floor of the house at the residence in question on the date of the incident. He identified People's exhibit No. 2 as an approximately At the conclusion of the transaction, everyone

two-minute-long video of the defendant's encounter with Drummond and the informant in the living room of the house. Rodgers admitted that

2

the video did not depict the transaction in the bathroom because he had not set up any surveillance of that room. was conducted that day. Following Rodgers' testimony, the case was continued for the completion of the bench trial. The continuation of the bench trial On this date, Aaron Roemer No audio surveillance

did not occur until November 21, 2007.

testified that he analyzed the items that defendant had given Drummond and found they contained 1.06 grams of cocaine. Following arguments, the trial judge found defendant guilty of delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant's attorney filed a The judge then stated that

motion for new trial, which was denied.

he understood that defendant had complaints about his attorney and allowed him to express his complaints. Defendant said that he was

innocent and that his attorney was not sufficiently diligent. Specifically, defendant felt that his attorney allowed the prosecutor to misstate the evidence during closing arguments and failed to point out contradictions in the testimony of the State's witnesses. Counsel responded to defendant's allegations, indicating

that he felt he had done nothing wrong. The judge stated that he had to evaluate whether counsel's performance fell below a reasonable standard of competence and, if so, whether his performance affected the outcome of the case. The judge found that counsel was zealous in his representation of defendant stating, "I thought he did a good job. He was vigorous.

3

He cross-examined the forensic scientist, Aaron Roemer, probably more vigorously than 95 percent of the cases I see, regarding his analysis and conclusions***." Referencing the United States Supreme

Court's holding in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), the judge ruled that "none of the

[defendant's] statements met the Strickland test," and that counsel's performance "exceeded the level required by Illinois law." The cause proceeded to a sentencing hearing. The State

requested an extended-term sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. Defendant requested a sentence of probation or near the minimum of four years' imprisonment. years' imprisonment. The judge sentenced the defendant to six

Defendant filed a motion to reconsider Defendant appeals. ANALYSIS

sentence, which was denied.

Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously evaluated defendant's claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), rather than first determining whether new counsel should be appointed to argue defendant's assertions regarding the ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Defendant requests that this cause be remanded to allow the judge to conduct the appropriate inquiry. We reject defendant's argument.

The right to effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed by both the United States and Illinois Constitutions, includes the right to have the undivided loyalty of counsel, free from any

4

conflict of interest.

U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const.

1970, art. I,

Download People v. Dickerson.pdf