¶ 42 However, a defense decision not to seek severance is generally regarded as a matter of trial strategy, even if such a decision may prove unwise in hindsight. See People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28 (reasonable strategy not to seek severance and instead to pursue "all or nothing" strategy, thereby exposing jury to information it would not have otherwise heard, where counsel believed getting two acquittals in one proceeding was more likely than in two); People v. Gapski, 283 Ill.App.3d 937, 942 (1996) (reasonable strategy not to seek severance based upon counsel's determination that, even in the trial on the severed count, the jury would learn of defendant's prior felony because he intended to testify, and his credibly would be impeached with prior felony). Defendant relies on People v. Utley, 2019 IL App (1st) 152112, to counter that the failure to file a motion to sever cannot constitute reasonable trial strategy.
Based on the specific facts here, we cannot arrive at the same conclusion. ¶ 41 We see People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, 75 N.E.3d 503, as the apt comparison here. There, the State charged the defendant with armed robbery and being an armed habitual criminal.
As such, Illinois law has recognized "defense counsel may choose to pursue an 'all or nothing' trial strategy, in which the defendant is acquitted or convicted of all charges in a single proceeding." People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28, 75 N.E.3d 503. Accordingly, even when the trial court would grant a motion to sever based on the facts of the case, a reasonable defense attorney may choose to not file a motion to sever the charges.
¶ 36 "Generally, a defense decision not to seek a severance, although it may prove unwise in hindsight, is regarded as a matter of trial strategy." People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 24, 75 N.E.3d 503. The First District in Fields stated:
People v. Jackson , 2016 IL App (1st) 141448, ¶ 15, 407 Ill.Dec. 674, 64 N.E.3d 52. See also People v. Fields , 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 36, 412 Ill.Dec. 523, 75 N.E.3d 503. In Jackson , we pointed out that "courts have consistently held that eyewitness testimony that the offender possessed a firearm, combined with circumstances under which the witness was able to view the weapon, is sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that the weapon was actually a firearm."
¶ 55 "[U]nless vague or doubtful, eyewitness identification of an accused, even that of a single eyewitness, will sustain a conviction if the witness viewed the accused under circumstances permitting a positive identification." People v. Fields , 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 31, 412 Ill.Dec. 523, 75 N.E.3d 503. "While we must carefully examine the evidence before us, credibility issues, resolution of conflicting or inconsistent evidence, weighing the evidence and making reasonable inferences from the evidence are all reserved for the trier of fact. [Citation.] We will not overturn a conviction unless the evidence is ‘so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.’ [Citation.
Accordingly, "defense counsel may choose to pursue an 'all or nothing' trial strategy, in which the defendant is acquitted or convicted of all charges in a single proceeding." People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28, 75 N.E.3d 503.
¶ 120 "Generally, a defense decision not to seek a severance, although it may prove unwise in hindsight, is regarded as a matter of trial strategy." People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 24, 75 N.E.3d 503; see also People v. Poole, 2012 IL App (4th) 101017, ¶ 10, 972 N.E.2d 340. Further, "an attorney's failure to pursue a motion to sever cannot amount to ineffective assistance where, even if presented, the motion would have been unsuccessful."
People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28. "The mere fact that an 'all-or-nothing' strategy proved unsuccessful does not mean counsel performed unreasonably and rendered ineffective assistance." Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311-B, ¶ 28.
Although they did not do so, counsel's alleged ineffectiveness must be" 'evaluate[d] *** from counsel's perspective at the time'" of the allegedly deficient performance-here, pretrial decision-making- and not" 'with the distorting effects of hindsight.'" People v. Fields, 2017 IL App (1st) 110311B, ¶ 23 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698).