Lavin v. Rednour, 641 F.3d 830

Lavin, an Illinois prisoner, was tried bench-wise for attempted murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated battery of a senior citizen.
The victim, 81-year-old Costello, sustained extensive, permanent injuries; an eyewitness identified Lavin as the attacker and DNA on Lavin’s boots matched Costello.
Lavin claimed mistaken identity and tried to help Costello; the eyewitness description contradicted Lavin's account.
The trial court found Lavin had specific intent to kill based on his size/age disparity and the three stomps, one deemed rage-driven, constituting attempted murder.
Lavin received a 40-year sentence for attempted murder, extended beyond the 30-year max due to the victim’s age (over 60).
Lavin pursued state postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance for not pursuing voluntary intoxication; counsel favored mistaken identity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Evidence sufficiency for intent to kill	Lavin argues no evidence of specific intent to kill.	State asserts circumstantial proof supports intent from attack and injuries.	Evidence reasonably supported intent to kill; Jackson standard satisfied.
Apprendi step in sentencing	Apprendi violation by increasing sentence beyond statutory max without proper factfinding.	Bench trial, and age-based enhancement properly found beyond reasonable doubt; other issues procedurally barred.	No Apprendi violation; age fact found beyond reasonable doubt; some arguments procedurally barred.
Ineffective assistance for not raising voluntary intoxication	Counsel should have pursued voluntary intoxication as a defense.	Defense strategy favored mistaken identity; intoxication would not have altered outcome and conflicted with other defenses.	Strickland standard met; no deficient performance or prejudice shown.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier could convict)
Hopp, 805 N.E.2d 1190 (Ill. 2004) (specific intent may be inferred from circumstances)
Nelson v. Thieret, 793 F.2d 146 (7th Cir. 1986) (inference of intent from disparity in size/strength)
People v. Williams, 649 N.E.2d 397 (Ill. 1995) (circumstances may prove specific intent to kill)
Mack v. McCann, 530 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2008) (Apprendi applies to sentencing if facts increase max sentence)
Jones v. Hulick, 449 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2006) (Apprendi considerations in state bench trials)
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (harmless-error standard for flawed sentencing factfinding)
Escamilla v. Jungwirth, 426 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2005) (collateral attacks based on the petitioner’s testimony)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA standards for reviewing state-court decisions)