Ineffective assistance of counsel; Whether defendant was denied counsel at a critical stage; People v Cronic; Counsel’s duty to conduct pre-trial investigation; People v Hieu Van Hoang; Prejudice; Woods v Donald; Satterwhite v Texas; Failure to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing; Bell v Cone; Trial strategy; Inconsistent verdicts; People v Ellis; Felonious assault; People v Nix; Felony-firearm; People v Jackson; Acquitted conduct; People v Brown

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the trial court in his bench trial did not render inconsistent verdicts. He was convicted of felonious assault and felony-firearm for chasing the victim with a gun. On appeal, defendant first claimed he “was constructively denied assistance of counsel because, following the death of his retained counsel, substitute appointed counsel failed to contact or communicate with [him] for months before trial.” The court noted that although he was in fact “deprived of counsel during a critical stage of the lower court proceedings—the period of pretrial preparations after the passing of” his original counsel, “the presumption of prejudice and form of relief contemplated in Cronic are inapplicable here.” Considering the lack of activity in the case between the passing of original counsel and the appointment of substitute counsel, the postponement of the bench trial, and the subsequent retention of another counsel, “any error resulting from the denial of counsel during the pretrial phase was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defendant also argued that his third attorney’s “minimal preparation for trial resulted in her failure to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” The court disagreed. “While defendant advances that counsel . . . failed to adequately investigate the underlying matter in the three weeks preceding trial, counsel . . . thoroughly examined complainant, reviewed the video exhibits presented by the prosecution, highlighted discrepancies in complainant’s testimony in her closing argument, and presented a witness to corroborate defendant’s narrative of the incident.” In any event, to the extent that counsel’s “performance was deficient, defendant has failed to establish that ‘but for counsel’s deficient performance, a different result would have been reasonably probable.’” The court also rejected his contention that the trial court rendered inconsistent verdicts when it convicted him while acquitting his codefendant of identical offenses. “The quantum and quality of evidence against defendant was greater than that” inculpating his codefendant, “particularly considering there was admitted video evidence capturing defendant’s threatening and derogatory statements against” the victim and his pursuit of him. And the victim “repeatedly reiterated that defendant was the sole party chasing him after the parties’ initial interaction at the car show,” and followed him “for approximately three blocks, all while filming the matter and allegedly holding a firearm.” Affirmed.