Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Solloway; Failure to request the appointment of an expert witness on eyewitness identification; People v. Blevins; People v. Foster; People v. Putman; Trial strategy; People v. Horn; People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration); People v. Chapo; People v. Ackerman

Holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the appointment of an expert witness on eyewitness identification, the court affirmed. He was convicted of assault with intent to murder, intentional discharge of a firearm at a dwelling or an occupied structure causing injury, felon in possession, and felony-firearm. Victim-J and his girlfriend were inside their apartment with their child when defendant knocked on the door. J looked through the peephole and saw someone wearing a hoodie standing to the right of the door. J opened the door and said, “What’s up?” The person opened fire. Evidence was presented that defendant shared no relationship with J, but did have a relationship with the person who lived across the hallway from J’s apartment. “Two days later, defendant was arrested following a traffic stop where police recovered" handguns and ammunition. Defendant claimed that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the appointment of an expert witness on eyewitness identification. Counsel extensively cross-examined J as to his eyewitness identification of defendant. Counsel elicited testimony that “the peephole [through which [J] saw defendant]” was pretty small. Further, counsel cross-examined J as to the shooter's visibility. During trial, defense counsel challenged the veracity of J’s eyewitness identification of defendant on the night the shooting occurred. Counsel noted that J “indicated the hoodie covered [the shooter’s] forehead,” and counsel asked J “if he remembered testifying at the preliminary examination that the light in the hallway, where the shooter stood, was very dim.” Thus, counsel was prepared to cross-examine J as to his eyewitness identification and made an effort to discredit J’s identification of defendant as the shooter. Further, “[d]efendant offers no proof that an expert witness would have testified favorably if called by the defense.” Thus, he did not establish the factual predicate for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, he did not establish “a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s alleged error the result of the proceedings would have been different.”