Ineffective assistance of counsel; Plea negotiations; Cross-examination; Effect of defense counsel’s illness during the trial; Investigation of the case

Holding that the trial court did not err in denying defendant-Gilliam’s motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed his CSC I convictions. He asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide information about a plea offer, failing “to properly cross-examine the complaining witnesses,” failing to reasonably investigate the case, and due to her illness. Regarding the first claim, as there was no record evidence “that trial counsel failed to properly inform Gilliam of the terms of the plea agreement, he” could not establish the factual predicate of the claim. Further, “without evidence to prove that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the plea-bargaining stage,” the court could not review whether her “advice prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings.” As to the cross-examination claim, the transcripts supported “the trial court’s recollection that trial counsel raised doubt about the credibility of the witnesses against Gilliam at trial. During” her cross-examination of victim-CD, “CD admitted that her police report was written in part by someone else, and that the report had been changed multiple times by an officer. Trial counsel also repeatedly noted discrepancies between information written in reports and statements made by those witnesses at trial. Trial counsel attempted to cast doubt on the lab results when she engaged in a line of questioning to suggest that Gilliam’s DNA could have been transferred via skin or sweat onto CD. And finally, although her line of questioning was ultimately objected to, trial counsel did attempt to question the thoroughness and completeness of the investigating officer’s reports during her cross-examination of” an officer. The court further concluded that the trial court did not clearly err “in finding that trial counsel’s investigation into the factual background of the case was adequate.” And it found that her “health issues did not lead her performance to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness or affect the outcome of the proceedings.”