People v. Munoz

• Citation: 2022 IL App (1st) 201046 U
• Decision Date: 23 November 2022
• Docket Number: 1-20-1046
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2022 IL App (1st) 201046-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JASON MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-20-1046

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division

November 23, 2022

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 07 CR 19990 The Honorable Charles P. Burns, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Gordon concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

REYES JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The second-stage dismissal of defendant's postconviction petition is affirmed, where (1) defendant is not entitled to further second-stage proceedings to develop an evidentiary record as to the effect of his drug and alcohol use on his brain development and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to present such evidence during defendant's sentencing hearing.

¶ 2 After a jury trial, defendant Jason Munoz (defendant) was convicted of first-degree murder and felony murder and was sentenced to 75 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant's conviction was affirmed by this court on appeal. People v. Munoz, 2016 IL App (1st) 133646-U. Defendant subsequently retained private counsel and filed a postconviction

1

petition, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and challenging his sentence as unconstitutional. The petition advanced to the second stage, where the State filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court dismissed the petition and defendant now appeals, asking this court to remand for a third-stage evidentiary hearing on his ineffectiveness claim and for further second-stage proceedings on his constitutionality claim. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant's conviction is contained in our earlier decision. See Munoz, 2016 IL App (1st) 133646-U, ¶¶ 4-53. We repeat here only those facts necessary to an understanding of the issues raised on this appeal.

¶ 5 Defendant, who was 26 years old at the time, was charged by indictment with eight counts of first-degree murder, including felony murder, and one count of attempted armed robbery in connection with the attempted robbery of Shane Hess (Hess) and the fatal shooting of Hess' friend Scott Christopher Himle (Himle) in the early morning hours of August 31, 2007. At approximately 11:35 a.m. on that date, defendant was arrested and transported to Area 5 police headquarters for questioning, where he was placed in an interview room with the electronic recording system activated. During his time in custody, defendant made a statement implicating himself in the shooting.

¶ 6 Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 7 Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress any statements that defendant had made while in custody, claiming, in relevant part, that defendant was visibly under the influence of drugs at the time he was at the police station and that defendant was not initially

2

offered medical care despite the fact that "it was apparent that [d]efendant was seriously ill either from withdrawal or from related medical issues."

¶ 8 During the hearing on the motion to suppress, the detectives who had investigated the shooting testified, and portions of the electronic recording from the interview room were played for the circuit court throughout the testimony. Detective Arthur Young (Young) testified that he interviewed defendant from 1:25 p.m. to 1:31 p.m., and defendant did not appear to be physically or mentally ill at that time. Young conducted another interview with defendant at approximately 4:44 p.m., and defendant did not complain of any illness or appear to be "dopesick," i.e., ill due to drug withdrawal. Young interviewed defendant again from approximately 8:06 p.m. until 9:02 p.m., and defendant neither exhibited signs of illness nor indicated that he was ill. Defendant became ill and was taken to the hospital for approximately one hour at 10:41 p.m., when Young was not present. Young next interviewed defendant from 1:27 a.m. to 1:58 a.m., during which Young asked defendant whether he was becoming dopesick and defendant responded that he was not. Defendant instead told Young that he was "hung over" and admitted to occasionally using crack and heroin.

¶ 9 Detective Edward Schak (Schak) testified that he participated in several interviews of defendant along with Young on August 31 and September 1, 2007. During an interview with defendant on September 1, 2007, defendant made several statements implicating himself in the shooting. Schak testified that defendant did not appear to be dopesick or otherwise physically or mentally ill while making these statements. On cross-examination, Schak testified that defendant had informed him he frequently used cocaine and had previously been a heroin user.

¶ 10 Detective David Healy (Healy) testified that he interviewed defendant at approximately 4:06 p.m. on September 1, 2007, where defendant described prior crimes he had committed

3

and described the handgun used in the shooting. Healy testified that defendant never indicated that he was dopesick or otherwise did not feel well during that conversation. Healy further testified that at approximately 7:25 p.m., defendant asked for his medication and Healy called for an ambulance to transport defendant to the hospital so he could receive his medication.

¶ 11 Defendant did not testify during the hearing, and during arguments, counsel asserted that defendant's rights were violated given, among other things, the length of his time in custody, his drinking and drug use prior to his arrest, and his physical condition, including lack of sleep. The circuit court ultimately denied the motion to suppress.

¶ 12 Trial

¶ 13 The evidence presented at trial established that, at approximately 3 a.m. on August 31, 2007, Hess, Himle, and Himle's girlfriend, Michelle Parisi (Parisi), were riding their bicycles home after attending a party. The three traveled down Maplewood Avenue, with Himle and Parisi in front and Hess riding behind them. As they rode, Parisi heard someone running, and when she looked over her shoulder, she observed someone running next to Hess' bicycle. Hess testified that he felt a hand grab his backpack and he was pulled off his bicycle and landed in the middle of the street. Hess felt a hand on his backpack, preventing him from rising, and heard the man holding the backpack instruct him to "give me everything in your wallet, and everything will be okay." Hess, however, did not reach for his wallet. After the man released his backpack, Hess rose and ran between two parked vehicles. As he reached the sidewalk, he turned and observed Himle and a man in the middle of the street. The man was approximately 5 to 10 feet from Himle and was pointing a handgun at him; other than Parisi, Hess did not observe anyone else standing nearby. Hess witnessed a flash as the weapon was fired, although

4

he did not observe Himle being shot. Parisi similarly testified that she observed the man holding his arm straight out with a flat black metal handgun in his hand and firing once.

¶ 14 Several of the State's other witnesses testified to defendant's conduct immediately prior to the shooting. Lori Karra (Karra) testified that she was sitting with a friend on a stoop on North Avenue east of Maplewood Avenue between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. on August 31, 2007, when a friend nicknamed "Ice" approached her. Ice was accompanied by defendant, and Karra heard one of them mention an intention to rob people. Karra also observed defendant with a handgun tucked into the waistband of his pants. Ice, whose name was Donald Mercado (Mercado), testified that defendant had approached him on the evening of August 31, 2007, attempting to sell a handgun. Mercado did not purchase the weapon, but instead unsuccessfully tried to take the weapon from defendant so that he could purchase drugs. Mercado then agreed to assist defendant in selling the handgun, and escorted defendant to a group of gang members who were ultimately uninterested in purchasing the weapon. Mercado and defendant then observed "three or four white people" riding by on bicycles, and defendant ran after them. Mercado heard a gunshot but did not observe the shooting.

¶ 15 In grand jury testimony which he denied making, Brandon Smith (Smith) testified that on August 31, 2007, he was with his cousin Diamond Davis (Davis) on Maplewood Avenue and LeMoyne Street. They were speaking with Mercado when defendant rode up on a bicycle, retrieved a handgun from his waistband, and showed it to Smith. Mercado attempted to convince Smith and Davis to purchase the handgun, but they were uninterested. Five or ten minutes into the conversation, three or four people on bicycles rode down Maplewood Avenue. Defendant stated that he was going to rob one of them, and ran after...