People v. Scott

2026 IL App (4th) 241597 FILED October 16, 2026 NO. 4-24-1597 Carla Bender 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County PRESTON V. SCOTT, ) No. 20CF1536 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Ronald J. White, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice DeArmond concurred in the judgment and opinion. Presiding Justice Steigmann also specially concurred, with opinion. OPINION ¶1 Following a jury trial, defendant, Preston V. Scott, was found guilty of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2020)) and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 80 years and 14 years in prison, respectively. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, (2) his posttrial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise or properly present his claims of his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, (3) the court erred in admitting prior bad act evidence, and (4) the court violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). We reverse and remand for a new trial. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 In August 2020, a grand jury indicted defendant on multiple counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (2) (West 2020)) (counts I through XII), one count of aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)) (count XIII), and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)) (count XIV) in connection with the April 2020 shooting death of David Foley. The State’s theory of the case was that defendant sold drugs and shot Foley as an act of revenge because Foley acted as a confidential informant for the police during controlled drug buys that involved defendant. Prior to trial, the State elected to proceed on only one first degree murder count (id. § 9-1(a)(2)) and the unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon count (id. § 24-1.1(a)). The trial court dismissed the remaining counts on the State’s motion. ¶4 In September 2022, defendant’s jury trial was conducted. The States evidence showed that on the morning of April 2, 2020, Foley was shot and killed on a residential street in Rockford, Illinois. Ryan Mattingly testified that he resided at 2111 Oregon Avenue in Rockford, where the shooting occurred. Around 10:25 a.m., he looked out his front window and observed two vehicles stopped in front of his house and one person exiting a vehicle. Mattingly stated he heard approximately 10 gunshots and retreated to his basement. After returning to the window, he observed only one vehicle and a man, who was later identified as Foley, lying in the street. ¶5 Exterior surveillance cameras at Mattingly’s home captured the shooting at 10:26 a.m. Brandon Bradley, a police officer for the City of Rockford, reviewed recordings from those cameras at the scene. He testified that they showed a black Impala traveling westbound on Oregon Avenue followed closely by a gray SUV. Bradley described the black Impala as an “older model,” with silver trim around the exterior and a silver gas cap. He testified that the recordings showed both vehicles stopping in the street and the driver of the gray SUV exiting his vehicle and walking toward the driver’s side of the black Impala. The driver of the black Impala then quickly exited his vehicle and began shooting at the driver of the gray SUV. Bradley described the shooter -2- as “a thinner male wearing a dark colored hoodie, dark pants, [a] face mask, [and having] lettering down the leg of the pants.” ¶6 The surveillance camera recordings from Mattingly’s residence were admitted into evidence and published to the jury. They captured the incident from three separate angles and depicted events that were consistent with Bradley’s descriptions of what had occurred. None of the recordings provided a close-up view of the shooter’s face. ¶7 Robert Mohlman testified he also resided near the scene of the shooting. He recalled being in his back yard and hearing “[a]bout half a dozen” gunshots. He then walked between his house and his garage and saw a Black male “jump in a black car and drive off.” Mohlman testified the male was “maybe” five feet and nine inches tall to six feet tall. He also saw another car and a man lying in the street. On cross-examination, Mohlman testified he did not remember what the Black male was wearing and that he did not think the male wore a mask. ¶8 Matthew Gibbons testified that he was a member of the Rockford Police Department’s crime scene unit. On April 2, 2020, he was dispatched to the scene of the shooting. Gibbons identified several photographs he took at the scene, including several depicting Foley’s vehicle, which he described as a Chevy Equinox. ¶9 Dr. Mark Peters, an expert in forensic pathology, testified he performed Foley’s autopsy. His testimony showed Foley was shot seven times, with two of the shots resulting in fatal wounds. During Dr. Peters’s testimony, 28 autopsy photos that depicted Foley’s body and his injuries were admitted into evidence and published to the jury. ¶ 10 The State called Barbara Mitchell, defendant’s grandmother, as a witness. She testified that in April 2020, she was residing at an apartment complex in Rockford called Sun Valley Terrace. Defendant did not live with her at that time but did visit. -3- ¶ 11 The State’s evidence further showed that the police discovered a cell phone in the front passenger area of Foley’s gray SUV. Officer Scott St. Vincent testified he located the cell phone and noticed that it was not “locked,” was “still illuminated,” and “had the recent calls listed.” The last call on the phone was made to a contact named “James” and occurred within 10 minutes of the time that the police arrived at the scene. ¶ 12 Michelle Bootz testified that in April 2020, she worked as a violent crime detective for the Rockford Police Department and had a “background in phone extraction.” She received Foley’s cell phone in connection with the underlying case and completed an extraction, which involved using computer programs to extract data from the phone and putting the data into a readable report. Bootz testified the phone number associated with Foley’s phone was 224-***- 0549 (phone number 0549). ¶ 13 Michael Fitzgerald, a detective with the Rockford Police Department, testified that he received a description of a vehicle that left the scene of the shooting, a black Chevy Impala with tinted windows, chrome trim, and a chrome gas cap. Fitzgerald also received information that Foley’s cell phone indicated he met with someone at a Mobil gas station prior to the shooting. Fitzgerald checked surveillance video at the Mobil gas station and found video relevant to the investigation. Recordings of the Mobil surveillance videos were admitted into evidence and published to the jury. They showed both a black Impala with chrome trim and a chrome gas cap and a gray SUV that matched the description of Foley’s vehicle in the vicinity of the gas station. At approximately 10:19 a.m., the gray SUV pulled into a side parking lot at the gas station before leaving a short time later. ¶ 14 Dalton Blair testified that in April 2020, he worked for Walmart as an asset protection assistant store manager. His duties included maintaining Walmart’s camera system. On -4- April 9, 2020, he was contacted by the police about obtaining store surveillance video of the purchase of a cell phone associated with the phone number 708-***-6501 (phone number 6501). Blair was provided with the universal product code number of the cell phone and located surveillance video for the requested purchase, which he provided to the police. Evidence showed two males purchased the phone on February 23, 2020. The surveillance video was admitted into evidence, and excerpts were published to the jury. The State later argued that one of the males was defendant. ¶ 15 Blair testified that he later received a second request from the police for surveillance video of the purchase of a cell phone associated with the phone number 779-***-0237 (phone number 0237). He was able to determine that the purchase of the second phone was made on March 19, 2020. He also obtained surveillance video of the purchase, which was admitted into evidence and published to the jury. ¶ 16 The State’s evidence showed that a woman named Corionna Bell purchased the phone associated with phone number 0237. Bell testified and acknowledged purchasing the cell phone from Walmart on March 19, 2020. She later spoke with the police about the purchase. According to Bell, an individual named “Marty” asked her to “get him a phone,” and she agreed. Bell then drove to Walmart with Marty and “Prada,” the latter of whom she identified as defendant. Marty was driving the vehicle, defendant was the front seat passenger, and Bell rode in the back seat. Bell went inside Walmart alone and bought a pay-as-you-go phone. Bell identified still images of herself taken from the Walmart surveillance video. ¶ 17 Bell testified that when she returned to the car, she left the phone in the back seat. She denied giving the phone to defendant and stated she did not remember handing him the phone. The State played a portion of Bell’s recorded interview with the police, during which Bell reported -5- that defendant “grabbed” the phone and kept it while she was in the car. Bell then acknowledged telling the police that defendant “grabbed” the phone and “hung onto” it. ¶ 18 Bell also acknowledged that at the time of trial, she had pending criminal charges and a pending bench warrant for her arrest. In exchange for providing truthful testimony at defendant’s trial, the State had agreed to dismiss the charges against her and quash the bench warrant. ¶ 19 The record shows that, without objection, the cell phone records associated with Foley’s phone, phone number 0549, and the phones purchased from Walmart, phone numbers 6501 and 0237, were admitted into evidence. ¶ 20 Adam Cox testified he was a detective with the Rockford Police Department and involved in the underlying investigation. He had received training on a software program called GeoTime, which was a law enforcement tool used to analyze large amounts of data, including cell phone records. Cox testified that the location of a cell phone could be determined relative to a cell tower or cell site location through cell phone activity. ¶ 21 Cox testified that he was asked to “plot” or “track” the activities of the cell phones with phone numbers 6501 and 0237 with GeoTime. That process involved uploading records received from a cell phone provider into the GeoTime software, which “takes that information and then presents it on a 2D map” that can be used to “view the activity of that device.” Cox identified an exhibit containing screen recordings of the information he obtained through GeoTime for the cell phone activity associated with phone numbers 6501 and 0237. The exhibit was admitted into evidence and published to the jury. ¶ 22 Cox testified the GeoTime information showed that at the time of the murder, the last activity associated with phone number 0237 “appear[ed] to be in the vicinity of the homicide.” -6- He stated that when phone numbers 0237 and 6501 were tracked together, there was no activity from phone number 6501 until 10:26 a.m. The State’s location evidence showed that activity also occurred in the vicinity of the shooting and identified the activity as an outgoing phone call to Jadale Lamon. ¶ 23 On cross-examination, Cox acknowledged that through his analysis, he could not identify who was in possession of the phones associated with phone numbers 6501 and 0237. He also confirmed that in addition to the outgoing call at 10:26:58 a.m. to Lamon from phone number 6501, the GeoTime analysis showed activity from phone number 0237, including an incoming call at 10:23 a.m., an incoming text at 10:24 a.m., and an outgoing text at 10:25 a.m. The State’s GeoTime location evidence showed the incoming call and the text messages were exchanged between phone number 0237 and Foley’s cell phone. That evidence also showed a series of communications between phone number 0237 and Foley’s cell phone in the minutes before the murder. Those communications occurred in the general area of Rockford where the shooting occurred. As Cox testified, the GeoTime location evidence demonstrated that the last activity from phone number 0237 occurred at 10:25 a.m. near the location of the shooting. ¶ 24 The State further called Jacob Vereecken as a witness. Vereecken acknowledged that he was serving a 15-year prison sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections for two counts of aggravated robbery. His criminal history also included convictions for unlawful restraint in 2019, aggravated fleeing from the police in 2016, and aggravated robbery in 2010. ¶ 25 The State questioned Vereecken regarding whether he spoke to the police about defendant on June 18, 2020, and reported that “Prada” was the last person he saw with a car that belonged to an individual named Sabrina Layman. Initially, Vereecken stated he did not recall talking to the police or providing such information, asserting that, at that time, he was “probably” -7- under the influence and “on drugs.” After the State showed Vereecken an exhibit containing a recording of his police interview and asked whether a person depicted on the screen was him, Vereecken indicated that he remembered being at the interview but did not remember what he said. ¶ 26 Vereecken agreed that the interview occurred on the same date he was arrested for his two aggravated robbery charges. Again, however, he asserted that he did not recall what he said during the interview, being asked about Foley’s murder, or telling the police that “Prada was the last person [he] saw with the car.” The State then moved to play a portion of Vereecken’s recorded interview. Defendant’s attorney, Elder Granger II, raised no objection, stating, “If [the prosecutor] is going to impeach his own witness, I have no objection.” The trial court allowed the State to play the recording, which showed Vereecken telling the police that Prada was the last person he saw with a black Impala that was owned by a woman named Sabrina. Vereecken later testified that Layman drove a black Impala, but he could not remember whether the vehicle had “a lot of chrome.” ¶ 27 When asked by the State who Prada was, Vereecken stated he could not recall. However, upon further questioning, he acknowledged that he had heard people calling defendant by that nickname. Vereecken made an in-court identification of defendant and stated that he knew defendant from “just being around Rockford.” Vereecken testified that he also knew an individual named Jadale Lamon, who went by the nickname “Ice-o.” He stated that defendant and Ice-o were acquainted and that he had seen them together “[h]ere and there.” ¶ 28 The State continued to question Vereecken regarding whether he made various specific statements to the police about Foley’s murder and defendant’s involvement in the crime. Vereecken repeatedly testified that he did not recall making the statements and, each time he answered, the State was permitted to publish a portion of his recorded interview. -8- ¶ 29 Specifically, in response to Vereecken’s assertion that he could not recall telling the police what Prada wore on the day of the shooting, the State played an excerpt of Vereecken’s recorded interview, in which he described someone as wearing a hoodie with a black or gray hood and a skull cap and having a pair of gloves. The recordings played by the State further showed that, during his recorded interview, Vereecken (1) indicated that Prada “set up” a new phone number because someone had “set him up” with “a controlled buy,” (2) indicated that he learned information about the shooting from being around Prada and Ice-o while they were talking, (3) indicated that Prada told him the night before the shooting that he was going “duck hunting,” (4) stated that he heard “Prada say he killed that person” and that he heard Prada tell Ice-o that he shot the victim “when [the victim] came up to the window to buy,” (5) stated that Ice-o gave defendant $1,000 for a bus ticket to go to Texas, (6) stated that he heard Prada tell Ice-o that he “smoked that dude,” (7) stated that he heard Prada tell Ice-o that he got “a new line” and “tricked” a person into “letting [Prada] serve him again” and then shot the person when he “walked up,” (8) indicated that Prada “tried to get [him] to set dude up” and “tried to get [him] to shoot dude,” (9) stated that Foley “was the dude from the hotel” that “Prada killed” and that Foley had been “doing maintenance crew,” and (10) stated that two weeks before the murder, Prada stated he wanted Vereecken “to take care of this guy, [who] did a controlled buy on him,” and offering to make sure Vereecken was “straight” and offering him “cars.” ¶ 30 On cross-examination, Vereecken testified that his recorded statements to the police on June 18, 2020, were not true and that he told the police “untruths to help [himself] out.” He maintained that the information he learned about Foley’s murder came from Ice-o and that he never overheard a conversation between Ice-o and defendant. Vereecken asserted that he had no personal relationship with defendant and estimated that they had spoken less than five times. He -9- also denied ever seeing defendant with a firearm and stated he did not recall defendant ever selling him “any form of drugs.” ¶ 31 Detective William Donato testified that in April 2020, he was a detective with the violent crimes unit of the Rockford Police Department and was assigned to investigate Foley’s death. At the scene, he collected Foley’s cell phone, associated with phone number 0549, and later reviewed a “logical report” produced from an extraction performed on the phone. The report showed text messages “of interest” from phone number 0237, in which Foley discussed meeting with the person in possession of that phone and was directed to “[g]o to the Mobil” gas station. Donato testified that when he initially collected the phone, it was “giving [him] step-by-step directions to the *** Mobil.” In Foley’s phone, the contact for phone number 0237 was identified as “James.” The “James” in Foley’s phone was also associated with a second phone number. ¶ 32 Donato testified that during his investigation, he learned the phone associated with phone number 0237 was purchased on March 19, 2020. A search warrant was issued for the phone records associated with that phone. Donato testified those records showed that, from the date it was purchased on March 19, 2020, until the date of the shooting, the phone was only used to call or text Foley. The first phone call made from the phone associated with phone number 0237 was made 18 minutes after the phone was purchased from Walmart. ¶ 33 Donato further testified that he was one of the officers who interviewed Vereecken. He stated he had been a police officer for 17 years, and on “[c]ountless” occasions, he had observed people who were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. At the time of the interview with Vereecken, Donato did not notice anything unusual about Vereecken and “perceived him to be sober.” ¶ 34 On cross-examination, Donato testified that the second number associated with the - 10 - “James” contact in Foley’s phone was phone number 815-***-4311 (phone number 4311). According to Donato, phone number 4311 was connected to an individual named Cortez Houston. Additionally, he testified that during his investigation, he received information that defendant’s telephone number was 815-***-2415 (phone number 2415). Donato stated that his investigation indicated the phone associated with phone number 2415 was not “present at the murder.” ¶ 35 Donato also testified that the phone associated with phone number 6501, which was purchased from Walmart on February 23, 2020, by two males, had a different phone number, phone number 779-***-1004, at the time it was activated. However, a few weeks after it was purchased, the phone number was “changed over the phone through Verizon customer service” to phone number 6501. ¶ 36 Mike Jury testified that in October 2019, he worked for the Rockford Police Department in its narcotics unit. At the time, he was engaged in a narcotics investigation that targeted defendant and involved Foley as a confidential informant. Jury described Foley as being 50 to 55 years old and having a “very raspy, deep voice.” He also stated Foley had worked as a maintenance man or janitor and that he had heard people refer to Foley by the nickname “the maintenance man.” On October 24, 2019, a controlled drug buy was conducted, during which Foley entered a silver Chevy Impala and purchased a substance that field tested positive for probable cocaine from an individual that Foley identified as defendant. Foley referred to defendant as “Prada” or “Ghost.” Photographs were taken of the controlled buy, and it was also audio and video recorded. Jury identified photographs from the controlled buy, including still photographs of defendant. ¶ 37 Jury testified that on February 24, 2020, a second controlled drug buy occurred with Foley, who indicated that he could, again, purchase drugs from defendant. After Foley was - 11 - transported to the meeting location for the controlled buy and surveillance was set up, Foley called Jury and reported that defendant’s “brother” would be “making the delivery” for defendant. Jury testified that eventually, “[a] silver Pontiac G6 pulled up” and parked next to Foley. Foley briefly entered the vehicle, and “the G6 left the parking lot.” Jury testified that Foley then met with police and handed over “11 individually wrapped baggies.” Narcotics detectives also stopped the driver of the G6, who was identified as Robert Jarrett. Jarrett was taken into custody. ¶ 38 Jury testified that as a narcotics officer, he was familiar with the term “serve.” He stated that if someone was “out doing serves,” that meant that they were “doing drug deals.” He also testified that after Foley was killed, he provided the investigating officers with a list of names, showing who “Foley had conducted controlled purchases from.” Defendant’s name was on the list that Jury provided. According to Jury, the February 24, 2020, controlled buy that involved Jarrett was the last controlled buy that Foley participated in as a confidential informant. Jury was not aware that Foley was in Rockford attempting to obtain drugs on the date of his murder. Finally, he stated that on the date of the second controlled buy, he obtained a warrant for defendant’s arrest based on the October 24, 2019, controlled buy. On cross-examination, Jury testified that Foley had identified defendant’s phone number as 779-***-2400. ¶ 39 Robby Hatfield testified that in April 2020, he worked as a detective assigned to the Rockford Police Department’s narcotics unit. After Foley’s murder, he began listening to the jail phone calls from defendant’s “known associates,” who were in the Winnebago County jail, specifically, Jarrett and an individual named Edmond Lilly. Hatfield testified he was familiar “with the Winnebago County inmate jail system” and had been trained on how to utilize that system. He was also familiar with obtaining recordings from the system. According to Hatfield, once jail calls were recorded, law enforcement personnel could retrieve the calls from the system and were - 12 - allowed to make copies. Copies were made by finding a call in the system and downloading it to a disk. Once a call was downloaded, it could not be altered. Hatfield testified he could identify a particular inmate making a call because “[t]ypically they put in their MID ID number and make that call.” He described an “MID ID number” as a number assigned to each inmate. Hatfield asserted that he was also familiar with Lilly’s and Jarrett’s voices. ¶ 40 Hatfield next identified an exhibit that he stated contained recordings of two calls from Jarrett to defendant in February 2020. The recordings were admitted into evidence and played for the jury. Hatfield testified Jarrett placed the first call at 4:44 p.m. on February 24, 2020, to phone number 2415. He stated that he was familiar with defendant’s voice, having listened to drug buy recordings several times, and identified defendant as the recipient of the call. On the recording, the voice identified as defendant’s voice asked what happened. Jarrett stated he “went in there to hit” and suggested his recent arrest was caused by “the mountain man” or another individual. The person identified as defendant then referenced the “maintenance man,” to which Jarrett responded, “[Y]eah, it was either him or somebody else.” ¶ 41 The State’s evidence showed that at 5:04 p.m. on February 24, 2020, Jarrett placed a second phone call to phone number 2415. Again, Hatfield testified that defendant was the recipient of the call. During the second call, Jarrett asked what the maintenance man looked like. The individual identified as defendant described the maintenance man as having an Equinox and a “raspy” voice. Jarret asked if the man was “going bald on top,” and the person identified as defendant responded, “[A] little bit.” That person also stated that he was “trying to figure out [his] next move.” ¶ 42 Hatfield testified that around 4:30 p.m. on the day of the murder, Lilly made a three- way call to defendant. He stated Lilly first called an unknown female and then “ha[d] her three- - 13 - way call a number to [defendant].” A recording of Lilly’s call was admitted into evidence and published to the jury. On the call, the voice identified as Lilly’s stated, “I’m trying to make sure you cool.” The call recipient, identified as defendant, responded, “My s*** been hot, boy.” Lilly then stated that he heard someone “got put together earlier” and that he wanted to make sure “everybody cool.” The voice identified as defendant’s voice then responded, “[T]hat’s why I didn’t answer nothing from the county, my s*** hot.” ¶ 43 On cross-examination, Hatfield testified that he had not had any formal training in voice recognition. Also, he had never been certified as an expert. ¶ 44 Harley Wessner testified he was a detective for the Rockford Police Department. On July 27, 2020, he “was a member of the SCOPE Team,” which he described as “a street team” that focused on violent offenders and people with warrants. On that date, he and other officers were looking for defendant and visited Sun Valley Terrace. Wessner stated that while driving a squad car, he entered a cul-de-sac and noticed a car. He and the driver of the car looked at one another, and Wessner recognized the driver as defendant. ¶ 45 Wessner further testified that when he “attempted to turn around to stop” the car, defendant “[t]ook off driving” and “fled the scene.” Granger objected and, during a discussion outside the jury’s presence, argued that the State was impermissibly attempting to show that defendant had fled from the police when defendant had previously been found not guilty of that offense in other proceedings. The State maintained Wessner’s testimony was relevant to show that defendant knew he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, stemming from the circumstances of the first controlled drug buy. The trial court found Wessner’s testimony was relevant to determining whether defendant knew that he had an outstanding warrant. However, the court also ruled that Wessner could not testify “about the charge of fleeing.” - 14 - ¶ 46 On further direct examination, Wessner testified that defendant drove his vehicle from the area of Sun Valley Terrace to a particular street intersection located approximately 1.5 miles away. He followed defendant with his lights activated, and defendant was taken into custody at the intersection. ¶ 47 Finally, the record shows that during the State’s case, the parties stipulated that defendant had a prior felony conviction for residential burglary. ¶ 48 During defendant’s case-in-chief, Granger called Mitchell, defendant’s grandmother, as a witness. Mitchell testified she resided at 3311 Sun Valley Terrace. On April 8, 2020, police officers came to her residence to ask about defendant’s whereabouts on April 2, 2020. Mitchell stated she told the police that defendant arrived at her house between 9 and 9:30 a.m. She asserted that defendant remained at her residence until approximately 10:30 or 10:35 a.m. ¶ 49 On cross-examination, Mitchell testified that she had a doctor’s appointment on the morning of April 2, 2020. She maintained that she was at her appointment at about 8:30 a.m. and that she returned home at around 10 a.m. Mitchell denied telling the police that she came home from her doctor’s appointment at around 10:30 a.m. However, she acknowledged telling them that defendant came to her residence “a little while” after she returned home. At trial, she estimated defendant’s arrival to be at about 10 a.m. or 10:05 a.m. Mitchell also testified that a neighbor told her defendant had come to her house earlier on April 2, 2020, when she was not home. She acknowledged that she did not tell the police about what her neighbor told her. Mitchell also acknowledged that she had been in the courtroom during defendant’s trial. When asked whether she realized that saying she arrived home at 10 a.m. gave defendant an alibi, she responded, “I don’t know.” ¶ 50 The State recalled Detective Donato as a rebuttal witness. He testified that on April - 15 - 8, 2020, he spoke with Mitchell about defendant. According to Donato, Mitchell reported that she last saw defendant on April 2, 2020. She stated she went to a doctor’s appointment at 9 a.m. that morning and returned home at 10:30 a.m. Mitchell recalled that defendant “arrived a short time after she arrived back home.” ¶ 51 During deliberations, the jury asked to view some of the evidence in the case, including Vereecken’s recorded interview with the police. By agreement of the parties, the jury was allowed access to the same excerpts of Vereecken’s recorded interview that were admitted into evidence and published during the trial. Ultimately, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and unlawful possession of a weapon by felon. It also found proven the allegation that defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused the death of another person. ¶ 52 Following his trial, defendant submitted pro se filings alleging Granger provided ineffective assistance during the various stages of his trial. He asked the trial court to conduct a Krankel inquiry (see People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984)) into his pro se claims. ¶ 53 In October 2022, Granger filed a posttrial motion on defendant’s behalf, seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. In November 2022, defendant retained new counsel, attorney Glenn Jazwiec, who entered his appearance on defendant’s behalf. Jazwiec represented to the trial court that he intended to represent defendant in connection with his ineffective-assistance claims against Granger and, over several dates in 2023 and 2024, hearings were held on those claims. The court characterized the hearings as Krankel proceedings, and although the State was present for the hearings, the court did not allow it to participate. ¶ 54 The record shows Jazwiec presented testimony from both Granger and defendant, and the trial court also questioned the witnesses. In presenting argument to the court, Jazwiec asserted that Granger was ineffective on four specific bases: (1) failing to properly prepare the case - 16 - for trial with defendant, (2) failing to question potential jurors during jury selection, (3) failing to file a motion to dismiss defendant’s case on speedy trial grounds, and (4) calling Mitchell as a witness. In May 2024, the court entered a written order, denying defendant’s “motion for ineffective assistance of counsel,” finding that “trial counsel was not ineffective.” ¶ 55 In August 2024, Jazwiec filed an amended posttrial motion on defendant’s behalf, alleging defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. In October 2024, the trial court entered a written order denying defendant’s amended posttrial motion. In December 2024, it sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 80 years in prison for first degree murder and 14 years in prison for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. ¶ 56 This appeal followed. ¶ 57 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 58 A. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel ¶ 59 On appeal, defendant first argues that Granger provided ineffective assistance at his trial. He asserts multiple bases of deficient performance by Granger and contends that such deficiencies, either alone or cumulatively, affected the jury’s verdict and denied him his right to a fair trial. ¶ 60 Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are evaluated under the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which requires that a defendant show both that (1) his counsel’s actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel’s deficient performance caused him prejudice. People v. Yankaway, 2025 IL 130207, ¶ 61. Under the first prong, counsel’s performance is “measured against prevailing professional norms.” Id. ¶ 62. “Under the second prong, the defendant must show that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would - 17 - have been different.” Id. To prevail, the defendant must satisfy both Strickland prongs. Id. “The failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. ¶ 61 1. Admission of Cell Phone Records ¶ 62 Defendant’s initial ineffective assistance claim concerns Granger’s failure to object to the admission of the cell phone records associated with Foley’s phone—phone number 0549— and the two cell phones alleged to have been in defendant’s possession at the time of the murder— phone numbers 0237 and 6501. He asserts that the cell phone records were not properly authenticated in that the certifications accompanying them failed to comply with Illinois Rule of Evidence 902(11) (eff. Sept. 28, 2018). Defendant maintains Granger should have objected to the authenticity of the records in response to the motions in limine the State filed seeking their admission and that he performed deficiently in failing to do so. He also contends that Granger’s failure to object was highly prejudicial because the State’s case heavily relied on the records and the evidence obtained therefrom. According to defendant, none of the testimony and evidence derived from the cell phone records would have been admitted had Granger objected based on the deficiencies in the certifications, making it “plausible that the result of trial would have been different absent counsel’s error.” ¶ 63 The record shows that, prior to trial, the State filed motions in limine, asking the trial court to allow the admission of cell phone records relevant to the case from Verizon and T- Mobile. Citing Illinois Rule of Evidence 803(6) (eff. Mar. 24, 2022) and Rule 902(11) (eff. Sept. 28, 2018), the State alleged that the custodians of the records had provided “certification as to the accuracy” of the records and that the records were self-authenticating. The State submitted purported certifications that pertained to the cell phone records it sought to have admitted. - 18 - ¶ 64 At hearings on the State’s motions, Granger offered no objection to the admission of the records. Specifically, he denied having any objection to the records based on foundational issues, indicated he would have no problem with the records being presented at trial through stipulation, and commented that the records were business records and self-authenticating. The trial court granted the State’s motions to admit the records. ¶ 65 In responding to defendant’s argument on appeal, the State argues that Granger did not perform deficiently by electing to stipulate to the admissibility of the phone records. It asserts that even assuming bases existed for challenging the certifications submitted with the records, defendant cannot show that the State would have been unable to cure the defects and provide proper certifications. The State posits that Granger likely “knew that establishing a proper foundation would have been very easy for the State and also knew the documents were accurate.” ¶ 66 Illinois Rule