{ "id": 4261283, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORIAN WHITE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. White", "decision_date": "2005-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201403\u20143202", "first_page": "1056", "last_page": "1062", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "362 Ill. App. 3d 1056" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "836 N.E.2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "361 Ill. App. 3d 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4258897 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/361/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "622 N.E.2d 86", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 Ill. App. 3d 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2961163 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/251/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "649 N.E.2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 Ill. App. 3d 1093", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 249150 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1097" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/271/1093-01" ] }, { "cite": "791 N.E.2d 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 Ill. App. 3d 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2468995 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801" }, { "page": "801" }, { "page": "801" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/339/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 N.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5551204 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18" }, { "page": "18" }, { "page": "19" }, { "page": "13" }, { "page": "13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/123/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "808 N.E.2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5461163 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ill. 2d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3874704 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/217/0289-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 586, "char_count": 12015, "ocr_confidence": 0.778, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.7609500189524373e-08, "percentile": 0.36010497137091774 }, "sha256": "b48fda2bf522747958cb45de453607b665092891e1591f44a97c1f49f0b107f7", "simhash": "1:f8ed043323c3ac98", "word_count": 1997 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:25.526171+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORIAN WHITE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE ERICKSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial where defendant Corian White was tried with codefendants Tracy and Jerry Chambers, defendant was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated unlawful restraint and was sentenced to six years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. On appeal, defendant contends that he was denied his sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of trial counsel due to an actual conflict of interest which resulted from counsel\u2019s joint representation of defendant and codefendant Tracy Chambers. He also contends that the compulsory extraction and inclusion of his DNA in identification databases, pursuant to section 5 \u2014 4\u20143 of the Unified Code of Corrections (the Code) (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 4\u20143 (West 2002)), violated his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.\nBACKGROUND\nThe charges against defendant and codefendants arose from the armed robbery of a fast-food restaurant on October 13, 2001. A private attorney filed an appearance on behalf of defendant and codefendant Tracy Chambers. The attorney assured the trial court that there was no conflict of interest. Defense counsel cross-examined the State\u2019s witnesses on behalf of Tracy Chambers, and his law partner cross-examined the State\u2019s witnesses on behalf of defendant. Jerry Chambers was represented by the office of the public defender.\nThe State presented testimony from three eyewitnesses \u2014 Trenda Andrews, Jeremy Ellis, and Vincent George \u2014 and from Chicago police detective James Carlassare.\nAndrews, the manager of the restaurant, testified on direct examination that on October 13, 2001,. she was at the back of the restaurant near the \u201cprep area\u201d when three men with guns robbed the store. \u201cThey\u201d told her and the other employees to go to the back of the restaurant. When \u201cthey\u201d asked for the manager, Andrews approached the front of the store where the \u201cdark skin guy with the oval face\u201d told her to open the registers. Andrews emptied one register into a book bag the robber had given her and handed it back to him. Andrews did the same with the safe, which was located at the back of the restaurant. The offender told Andrews to count to a certain number and to go to the back with the other employees. All three offenders then left.\nAndrews identified all three defendants and specifically identified defendant White as the person who had her empty the registers and the safe. She also testified she had seen one of the other offenders mopping the lobby floor before the robbery. Andrews gave a description of the offenders to the police and later made an identification of \u201cI think two guys\u201d from photographs. She also viewed two lineups but did not remember when. She identified two people in the first lineup and identified defendant White in the second.\nDuring the cross-examination of Andrews on behalf of codefendant Tracy Chambers, defense counsel attacked Andrews\u2019 recollection of the offense. Andrews testified that one offender had worn a mask. A second offender had been mopping the floor. Andrews was \u201cnot sure\u201d if it was the one mopping who wore the mask, but knew it was not \u201cthe one that took [her] in the back to the safe.\u201d During the cross-examination, the following also transpired:\n\u201cQ. You did give height and weight descriptions, correct?\nA. Mainly for one.\nQ. So it\u2019s your testimony that you talked to the officers who arrived and only told them a description as far as height and weight as to the person who took you by the safe, no one else; is that right?\nA. I guess. I\u2019m not sure.\nQ. Well, did you give any other descriptions to the police other than the one that took you in the back?\nA. Yes, I guess \u2014 no, I just told \u2014 they asked me about height, how tall they were.\nQ. Did you even observe them enough to give the police a description as to their height and weight?\n;\u00a1\u00ed sj\u00a1\u00a1\nA. No.\nQ. The only one that you could describe to the police at the scene five minutes after it happened was the one that took you in the back, correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. How did you describe him?\nA. Dark skin, oval face, short [haircut], stocky.\nQ. Did you give a height and weight description?\nA. I wasn\u2019t sure. I said maybe 180, something like that.\nQ. You identified that person today?\nA. Yes.\nQ. He has a beard today, correct?\nA. I can\u2019t see. Yes.\u201d\nDefense counsel continued to cross-examine Andrews about her recollection of the robbery and her identification of codefendants Tracy and Jerry Chambers. At one point, Andrews admitted there was \u201ca lot of stuff\u201d she did not remember about the robbery and that she was not \u201cpaying any attention to the two guys that did not take [her] to the safe.\u201d The following also transpired:\n\u201cQ. The two guys that didn\u2019t go in the back with you, did they talk you to any way [sic]?\nA. The only one I remember talking to me is the one that was telling me to come to the front and open the registers and stuff. That\u2019s the only one that directly talked to me.\nQ. Which one out of three men [sic] here was that one?\nA. The one named Corey [sic].\u201d\nDefense counsel\u2019s law partner adopted counsel\u2019s cross-examination for defendant White and attempted unsuccessfully to elicit testimony from Andrews that she did not see defendant\u2019s face.\nJeremy Ellis, an employee of the restaurant and a convicted felon, testified on direct examination that he could not remember the offenders\u2019 faces and that he \u201cprobably\u201d viewed two lineups but did not remember picking anyone out. He did not identify any defendants in open court. No additional information was elicited on cross-examination.\nVincent George, another restaurant employee, testified on direct examination that he was working in the back when the store was robbed and that he stayed in the back until it was over. George spoke to the police that night and viewed a lineup from which he identified one individual, but he was not sure if that person was one of the offenders. He did not identify any defendants in open court.\nAfter the case was continued numerous times while the State secured a witness, Detective Carlassare testified that defendant White, whom he identified in open court, was arrested on December 27, 2001. Carlassare then conducted two lineups, which were viewed by Andrews and Ellis. Both identified defendant White.\nAfter the State rested, defendants moved for a directed finding of not guilty. The court granted the motion in regard to codefendants Tracy and Jerry Chambers, but denied it in regard to defendant White. White then rested, and the court found him guilty. In making its findings, the court stated:\n\u201cI think that Miss Andrews of all the people that she had an opportunity to view, Corian White was the one that she had an opportunity, more than ample opportunity.\nThe testimony convinced me that she had ample time to identify him, ample time to see him. She was with him or he was with her most of the time. He was the guy that was ordering her around. He was the one who told her what to do.\nShe had plenty of time and she was absolutely certain in this court when she said he is the one. He did it. Finding of guilty.\u201d\nANALYSIS\nI\nDefendant first contends on appeal that defense counsel demonstrated his loyalty to Tracy Chambers rather than defendant by the questions he asked on cross-examination of Andrews which \u201chighlighted the relative strength of Ms. Andrews\u2019 identification of [defendant] against the relative weakness of her identification of his co-defendant, Tracy Chambers.\u201d Defendant maintains that trial counsel\u2019s defense strategies were thus constrained by his loyalty to Tracy Chambers and denied him effective assistance of counsel.\nA defendant\u2019s sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to conflict-free representation. People v. Hardin, 217 Ill. 2d 289, 299 (2005); People v. Morales, 209 Ill. 2d 340, 345, 808 N.E.2d 510 (2004). In cases involving joint representation of codefendants where the trial court is not apprised of the potential conflict, reversal of the defendant\u2019s conviction will be had upon a showing of an actual conflict of interest. People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1, 18, 525 N.E.2d 30 (1988); People v. Grant, 339 Ill. App. 3d 792, 801, 791 N.E.2d 100 (2003). This means the defendant must point to some specific defect in his counsel\u2019s strategy, tactics, or decision making that is attributable to the conflict. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d at 18; Grant, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 801. While \u201cmere speculative or hypothetical conflicts are insufficient to demonstrate [an] actual conflict of interest\u201d (Grant, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 801), a defendant need not prove the conflict contributed to his conviction (Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d at 19). The prohibition against conflicts of interest is based upon the notion that no attorney is able to \u201cserve two masters.\u201d Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d at 13.\nIn this case, defendant maintains that an actual conflict of interest existed because he and codefendant Tracy Chambers had antagonistic defenses. In support of this claim, defendant cites defense counsel\u2019s cross-examination of Andrews where he elicited testimony showing that Andrews focused her attention on defendant during the robbery, which the court highlighted as key testimony in finding him guilty. The State responds that defendant has failed to provide direct evidence to support his contention and that the record does not demonstrate the existence of an actual conflict. The State\u2019s position is not supported by the record before us.\nDefense counsel\u2019s cross-examination of Andrews demonstrated an actual conflict. Counsel, in questioning Andrews on behalf of codefendant Tracy Chambers, attempted to show that Andrews never really saw the other two offenders and thus could not identify them to the police or in court. To establish his theory, counsel emphasized that the only offender Andrews (1) described to police, (2) spent time with, and (3) talked to was the individual who took her to the safe, i.e., defendant Corian White. The prosecution could not have done a better job of eliciting facts that supported her identification of defendant White, counsel\u2019s own client. We note that neither of the other two eyewitnesses identified any defendants in open court.\nWe therefore agree with defendant\u2019s assertion that the effect of counsel\u2019s cross-examination was to \u201csacrifice\u201d him for the sake of codefendant Tracy Chambers, who was acquitted. See People v. Lee, 271 Ill. App. 3d 1093, 1097, 649 N.E.2d 457 (1995). The record in this case clearly demonstrates that trial counsel was unable to \u201cserve two masters.\u201d Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d at 13.\nThus, defendant has pointed to a specific defect in counsel\u2019s tactics or strategy that resulted from the conflict. We therefore reverse defendant\u2019s convictions and remand for a new trial. See People v. Reyes, 251 Ill. App. 3d 426, 431, 622 N.E.2d 86 (1993).\nII\nDefendant next contends that the compulsory extraction and inclusion of his DNA in identification databases, pursuant to section 5 \u2014 4\u20143 of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 4\u20143 (West 2002)), violated his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Because we reverse defendant\u2019s convictions, we also reverse the trial court\u2019s order requiring DNA sampling. See People v. Orta, 361 Ill. App. 3d 342, 836 N.E.2d 811 (2005).\nCONCLUSION\nWe therefore reverse defendant\u2019s convictions. As we find the evidence sufficient to support a guilty finding and to protect against double jeopardy, we remand the cause for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nHOFFMAN, P.J., and THEIS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE ERICKSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier and Rebecca Myhr, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Sally Dilgart, Samuel Shim, and Timothy King, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORIAN WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201403\u20143202\nOpinion filed December 21, 2005.\nMichael J. Pelletier and Rebecca Myhr, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Sally Dilgart, Samuel Shim, and Timothy King, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1056-01", "first_page_order": 1074, "last_page_order": 1080 }