People v. R.M. (In re R.M.)
| Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4-21-0426 |
| Parties | IN RE R.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.M., Respondent-Appellant). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart and Natalia Galica, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
Scott Rueter, State's Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino David J. Robinson, and Luke McNeill, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a bench trial, respondent minor, R.M., was found guilty of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault ( 720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(b)(i) (West 2018)) and sentenced to 24 months’ probation. On appeal, R.M. (1) seeks a "limited remand" for an inquiry into a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) argues the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
¶ 3 In July 2020, the State filed a petition, alleging R.M., then age 15, was a delinquent minor for having committed the offenses of aggravated criminal sexual assault (id. ) (counts I and II) and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (id. § 11-1.60(c)(2)(i)) (counts III and IV). It asserted that on or about March 1, 2019, when R.M. was 14 years old, he committed acts of sexual penetration or conduct with S.W., who was then 5 years old, by placing his penis "to" S.W.’s anus (counts I and III) and mouth (counts II and IV).
¶ 4 In January 2021, the trial court granted the State's motion to allow certain hearsay statements into evidence under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) ( 725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2018) ). Specifically, the court ruled that the State could present evidence of statements S.W. made about the alleged sexual acts to her mother, Octivia F., and to Alison Elsea, a forensic interviewer at the Child First Center.
¶ 5 In March 2021, R.M.’s bench trial was conducted. The State's evidence showed that at the time of the alleged offenses, R.M. was 14 years old and S.W. was 5. On March 1, 2019, S.W. spent time at the home of Rennoria H.—R.M.’s mother. The next day, Octivia noticed S.W. acting unusually, prompting her to ask S.W. if "anybody d[id] anything to [S.W.] in [her] private areas." According to Octivia, S.W. made statements indicating R.M. put his penis in her mouth, "peed" in her mouth, and rubbed his penis "[f]rom her butt to her *** vagina."
¶ 6 The State submitted S.W.’s recorded interview with Elsea, during which S.W. also reported contact between R.M.’s penis and her mouth and anus. The record reflects R.M.’s mother was known by the nickname "Dinky." On the recording, S.W. described being at "Dinky's" house when both she and R.M. were looking out of a window. She stated she observed R.M., whom she identified by his first name, pull his pants down and rub his "nuts." S.W. indicated during the interview that word "nuts" referred to R.M.’s genitals. S.W. reported that R.M. told her to "come here" and "put [her] knees down to the ground." R.M. then put his "nuts" up to her face, put his "nuts" in her mouth, and "peed" in her mouth. S.W. stated the incident occurred in the dining room and R.M. threatened to put a sock in her mouth if she did not comply. She also reported that she wiped her mouth on a blanket and spit what was in her mouth into a garbage can in the kitchen. When asked about who else was present at the time of the incident, S.W. suggested others were "not there" or asleep. She also stated that one of her siblings was in another room watching Spider-Man.
¶ 7 On at least three occasions while describing contact between R.M.’s penis and her mouth, S.W. stated "that's it" when Elsea asked her what else had happened. Ultimately, however, S.W. further reported that R.M. "put his nuts in [her] butt." According to S.W., that act occurred while she and R.M. were in the dining room at Dinky's house and at the house of another individual who lived near Dinky. S.W. indicated that while she was at Dinky's house, R.W. told her to pull her pants down and lay down. She described lying on her stomach on a "cover." S.W. denied that R.M. touched any of her other body parts or that she touched him. S.W. also clearly stated R.M. was the only one to touch her and specifically denied that R.M.’s twin, whom she identified by his first name, did anything to her.
¶ 8 At trial, S.W., who was then seven years old, testified briefly. On questioning by the State, S.W. asserted she knew what it meant to "tell the truth" and that telling the truth was important. She stated she recalled telling her mother that R.M. "raped" her. She also remembered talking to Elsea. S.W. testified that what she reported to both her mother and Elsea was the truth. When asked what R.M. did to her, S.W. stated he "peed in [her] mouth." R.M.’s counsel declined any cross-examination.
¶ 9 The State's evidence further showed that Octivia retrieved multiple pairs of S.W.’s underwear from her dirty laundry, which she believed S.W. might have worn at the time of the alleged offenses. She gave the underwear to the police, and forensic testing was performed on the underwear at the Illinois State Police crime lab. A forensic scientist testified that one pair of underwear tested positive for the presence of seminal fluid, although no sperm cells were identified. A mixture of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was extracted from the seminal fluid. Using S.W.’s DNA profile, taken from a sexual assault kit performed on her, S.W.’s DNA was "remove[d]" from the mixture. The remaining DNA was determined to be from a male and compared to R.M.’s DNA profile. The comparison showed R.M. could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA mixture. According to the State's forensic scientist, the rarity of the DNA profile from the underwear was 1 in 430,000 people.
¶ 10 During his case, R.M. presented testimony from his mother, Rennoria, and his aunt. Both witnesses described multiple people being present at Rennoria's house at the time of the alleged offenses. Neither observed any physical contact between R.M. and S.W. Rennoria testified R.M. was never around S.W. by himself and noted her house always had "20 kids in there."
¶ 11 R.M. testified on his own behalf. He denied the allegations against him and stated he had no physical contact of any kind with S.W. Additionally, R.M. stated that after the incident at issue, Octivia and S.W. "pulled up" at his mother's house. While they were outside, his aunt asked S.W. whether "her mom [told] her that" in reference to the accusations against him and S.W. responded " ‘yes.’ "
¶ 12 The record shows the trial court found R.M. guilty of counts I and II, charging him with aggravated criminal sexual assault. It determined counts III and IV were lesser included offenses and entered no judgment on those counts.
¶ 13 In April 2021, R.M. filed a posttrial motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him and asking the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal or order a new trial. In July 2021, the court denied R.M.’s motion and sentenced him to 24 months’ probation.
¶ 14 This appeal followed.
¶ 17 Initially, we note that this is an accelerated appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 660A (eff. July 1, 2018). Under that rule, this court is required to issue its decision in an accelerated case within 150 days after the filing of the notice of appeal unless there has been "good cause shown." Ill. S. Ct. R. 660A(f) (eff. July 1, 2018). Here, R.M.’s notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 2021, and this court's disposition was due to be filed by December 20, 2021. That filing deadline has passed. However, we note that oral argument was requested and held and that both parties have filed motions with this court on appeal. The most recent motion was filed on December 17, 2021, shortly following oral argument in the case. Given the need to schedule and hold oral argument, as well as the parties’ filing of motions and the arguments involved, we believe there is "good cause" for issuing our disposition in this case after the 150-day deadline.
¶ 19 On appeal, R.M. first raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial attorney improperly failed to investigate or "mention" an allegation that Octivia sexually assaulted him when he was 13 years old, "starting one year before" the date of the alleged offenses against S.W. He maintains Octivia was a "central witness" in the case against him and allegations that she sexually assaulted him could have been used to impeach her credibility. R.M. acknowledges that his ineffective-assistance claim is being raised for the first time on appeal and was not developed during the underlying proceedings; however, he contends that because postconviction proceedings are unavailable to juvenile offenders, he is entitled to have his case remanded to the trial court for a Krankel inquiry (see People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984) ) into his claim.
¶ 20 Initially, we note that R.M. has attached the affidavit of his appellate counsel, Natalia Galica, to his brief. In her affidavit, Galica asserts she first learned of claims of sexual activity between Octivia and R.M. when communicating with R.M.’s trial attorney, Caleb Brown, in preparation for R.M.’s appeal. According to Galica, Brown indicated Rennoria told him about the alleged sexual activity prior to trial. He suggested R.M. and Rennoria might want to include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal based upon that information. Galica further described her communications with R.M. and Rennoria on the subject, averring that R.M. confirmed to her that the alleged sexual activity with Octivia had occurred and that both R.M. and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gordon
...materials are not appropriate for our consideration and declined to give them any weight. In re R.M., 2022 IL App (4th) 210426, ¶ 46, 198 N.E.3d 677. ¶ 37 The facts before us are distinguishable from People v. Huddleston, 212 Ill.2d 107, 816 N.E.2d 322 (2004), cited by defendant. There, the......