People v. Maya

• Decision Date: 28 March 2019
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3-18-0275
• Citation: 127 N.E.3d 1099,2019 IL App (3d) 180275,431 Ill.Dec. 566
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erick M. MAYA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2019 IL App (3d) 180275

127 N.E.3d 1099

431 Ill.Dec. 566

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Erick M. MAYA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-18-0275

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2019

James E. Chadd, Peter A. Carusona, and Andrew J. Boyd, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Mark A. Austill, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a preliminary Krankel inquiry, the Will County circuit court found no possible neglect of the defendant's case on the part of defense counsel, and declined to appoint new counsel. On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court's finding was manifestly erroneous.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State charged the defendant, Erick M. Maya, with first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014) ), attempted first degree murder (id. § 8-4(a), 9-1(a)(1) ), and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a) ).

¶ 4 During jury selection, venire member Kevin McGrath indicated that he worked as a correctional officer with the Will County Sheriff's Department. He also indicated that his son-in-law was an assistant state's attorney in Will County. McGrath denied that he would let prejudice or bias affect his ability to be fair and impartial. McGrath was called in for further questioning regarding his son-in-law. McGrath indicated that he would not speak to his son-in-law about the case, and it would not "be an issue" if he found the defendant not guilty. No questions were asked regarding McGrath's profession. The defendant's attorneys did not move to dismiss McGrath.

¶ 5 The parties agreed that they would each be allotted seven peremptory challenges. The defendant's attorneys used five of their seven challenges. McGrath was seated as the first alternate juror. When a juror became ill during the State's case-in-chief, McGrath was, by agreement of the parties, seated on the jury. At the conclusion of the defendant's trial, the jury found him guilty on all charged counts.

¶ 6 On October 8, 2014, the defendant filed a pro se motion for a new trial in which he alleged that George Lenard, one of his attorneys, had been ineffective.¹ Among his claims, the defendant alleged that he was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury in that:

"(a) Defendant informed his attorney that a correctional officer from the facility housing him in [sic ], and whom the defendant has had issues and conflicts with, was in the jury pool.

(b) Defendant's attorney knowingly refused to use a peremptory strike to remove said juror.

(c) Defendant's attorney stated that he would rather have the correctional officer on the jury than a venireman who was a State's Attorney."

¶ 7 At a hearing on October 14, 2014, defense counsel told the court that the defendant wished to withdraw his pro se motion. The defendant confirmed that he was voluntarily withdrawing his motion. Defense counsel subsequently filed a motion for a new trial on the defendant's behalf, which was denied. On October 20, 2014, the court sentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences of 72 years' imprisonment for first degree murder, 39 years' imprisonment for attempted first degree murder, and 11 years' imprisonment for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Prior to sentencing, a presentence investigation report (PSI) was filed. The PSI stated that defendant reported that he had never been diagnosed with a mental health illness or disorder.

¶ 8 Defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence. Soon thereafter, the defendant filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction. In the motion, the defendant again alleged that counsel had been ineffective for failing to move to strike a juror who worked as a correctional officer and with whom the defendant had engaged in "several confrontations." The defendant also alleged that defense counsel had been ineffective for failing "to conduct and [sic ] investigation or subpoena [the defendant's] hospital records, which would have forced the State to order a psychological evaluation." At a hearing on those motions, the court did not allow the defendant to argue any of his ineffectiveness claims, only allowing him to address the single issue in his motion that related to sentencing. The court denied the motion.

¶ 9 The defendant filed another pro se motion for a new trial on January 29, 2015. In that motion, the defendant reiterated his previous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court did not address the motion.

¶ 10 On direct appeal, this court rejected the defendant's argument that defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction relating to other-crimes evidence. People v. Maya , 2017 IL App (3d) 150079, ¶ 96, 417 Ill.Dec. 369, 88 N.E.3d 10. However, we agreed with the defendant's argument—and the State's confession of error—that the circuit court had failed to properly address his numerous posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. ¶¶ 104-05. We remanded the matter with instructions that the court conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry. Id. ¶ 105.

¶ 11 On remand, the court allowed the defendant to expound on his claims. The defendant's exposition, along with occasional questions from the court, spans 21 pages of record. Within that discourse, the defendant stated:

"Mr. George Lenard * * * allowed me to have a tainted jury which had a correctional officer from the housing unit where I was housed named Kevin McGrath, who I had several altercations with who would tell other inmates about my case. Since my case was against a minor and—and two females, he would tell other inmates in hopes to have them attack me and who would come to my cell and verbally insult me. Before trial he knew who I was by me having a high profile case and eventually working on my * * * POD nine times before trial * * *. After I informed George Lenard about him, he responded telling me, ‘Oh, well, we rather have him rather than anyone else or the venireman who's a State's Attorney.’ In another occasion, after I informed him I didn't want him on my jury, he told me, ‘Well, he said he was going to be fair.’ This [correctional officer] clearly had hatred towards me so of course he was going to find me guilty."

¶ 12 The defendant also stated that he informed Lenard of his mental health history, but Lenard refused to order a psychological test to determine if he was fit to stand trial. The defendant testified that Lenard failed to subpoena the defendant's hospital records or to consider an insanity defense. The defendant stated that he had been diagnosed with psychotic disorder and had been prescribed medication for schizophrenia, depression, anxiety attacks, and panic attacks.

¶ 13 The court then called Lenard to testify. The court briefly examined Lenard. The court asked Lenard if he ever had a good-faith belief that there was an issue with the defendant's fitness or a proper defense of insanity. Lenard replied: "No, Judge. In fact, there was a lot of, um, discussions between myself and [the defendant] that indicated the opposite." The court asked no questions related to McGrath or the composition of the jury. At a later date, after having reviewed the trial record and transcripts, the court found that the defendant had not shown a possible neglect of the case, and declined to appoint counsel.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 On appeal, the defendant argues that he sufficiently demonstrated possible neglect of his case, and that the circuit court's finding to the contrary was manifestly erroneous. Specifically, he claims that he showed that defense counsel possibly neglected his case in that counsel failed to (1) strike McGrath and (2) investigate the defendant's mental health issues. The defendant does not, however, challenge the procedures employed by the circuit court in conducting the preliminary inquiry.

¶ 16 Through People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), and its progeny, our supreme court has developed a procedural framework for the resolution of pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Where a defendant makes a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the circuit court must conduct a preliminary inquiry into those claims. People v. Moore , 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77, 278 Ill.Dec. 36, 797 N.E.2d 631 (2003). One goal of this preliminary inquiry is to allow the circuit court to create the necessary record for any claims raised on appeal. People v. Jolly , 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 38, 389 Ill.Dec. 101, 25 N.E.3d 1127 ; see also Moore , 207 Ill. 2d at 81, 278 Ill.Dec. 36, 797 N.E.2d 631 (observing that appellate review is precluded where the circuit court makes no record of a defendant's claims). If, after this preliminary inquiry, the circuit court "determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion." Moore , 207 Ill. 2d at 78, 278 Ill.Dec. 36, 797 N.E.2d 631. If the court instead determines that there has been "possible neglect of the case," it must appoint new counsel to represent the defendant at a full hearing on his claims on ineffective assistance. Id.

¶ 17 A court's determination that a defendant's claim does not demonstrate a possible neglect of the case will be reversed where that decision is manifestly erroneous. E.g. , People v. Robinson , 2017 IL App (1st) 161595, ¶ 90, 419 Ill.Dec. 454, 93 N.E.3d 573. "Manifest error is error which is ‘ "clearly evident, plain, and indisputable." ’ " People v. Morgan , 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155, 288 Ill.Dec. 166, 817 N.E.2d 524 (2004) (quoting People v. Johnson , 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360, 276 Ill.Dec. 399, 794 N.E.2d 294 (2002), quoting People v. Ruiz , 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85, 226 Ill.Dec. 791, 686 N.E.2d 574 ...