2022 IL App (2d) 200640
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- In 2010, when A.B. was about 10, she alleges her stepparent, James (Jamie) Boots, gave her marijuana and a sip of alcohol, then removed A.B.’s pajama pants and underwear and placed her mouth on A.B.’s vagina. A.B. testified the contact lasted ~2–3 minutes.
- Boots (a transgender woman; she/her pronouns used) disclosed the incident to medical staff in 2017, which led to a DCFS referral and a recorded police interview in March 2018 in which she admitted leaning over and at first said she stopped when she saw A.B.’s reaction, later acknowledging that her lips may have touched vaginal skin.
- Boots waived a jury; following a bench trial in January 2020 the trial court found both A.B. and Boots credible and convicted Boots of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1)).
- At sentencing the court considered mitigating factors (limited criminal history, treatment, education while jailed) and aggravating factors (psychological harm to victim, position of trust) and imposed 11 years’ imprisonment, 3 years MSR, $1,200 restitution, $250 DNA fee, and sex-offender registration.
- On appeal Boots argued ineffective assistance of counsel (per se under Cronic/Hattery and under Strickland), that the sentence was excessive, and that the restitution order was procedurally defective for failing to set time and manner of payment.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for the limited purpose of having the trial court set the time and terms (installments/deadline) for payment of restitution, considering Boots’s ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Boots) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s performance amounted to per se ineffectiveness under Cronic/Hattery (complete failure to adversarially test) | Counsel did not entirely fail — she cross‑examined, challenged credibility, argued defenses and asked State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Counsel conceded guilt in opening/closing, failed to meaningfully cross‑examine or present evidence, meriting presumed prejudice. | Court: No Cronic/Hattery per se ineffectiveness; counsel did not unequivocally concede guilt and did subject State to adversarial testing. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective under Strickland (deficient performance + prejudice) | Counsel’s strategy and cross‑examination were reasonable; no evidence that other tactics would likely change result. | Counsel misapplied law, failed to file suppression/vagueness motions, and cross‑examined inadequately — prejudicing outcome. | Court: Boots failed to show objectively unreasonable performance or reasonable probability of different outcome; Strickland claim fails. |
| Whether the 11‑year sentence was excessive / an abuse of discretion | Sentence within statutory range; court considered mitigating and aggravating factors and did not punish exercise of trial right. | Court undervalued rehabilitative prospects and made comments implying punishment for going to trial. | Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence (6–60 yr range) appropriately weighed factors and record rebuts claim of punishment for trial. |
| Whether restitution order was defective for not specifying time/manner and ability‑to‑pay consideration | Trial court must set time/manner (installments or single payment and deadline) considering ability to pay; omission is statutory error. | Boots did not preserve objection but urges plain‑error or ineffective‑assistance review. | Court: Trial court erred by not setting time/manner or deadline; remanded to set terms consistent with 730 ILCS 5/5‑5‑6(f). |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑pronged ineffective assistance test)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (presumed prejudice where counsel entirely fails to subject prosecution to meaningful adversarial testing)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (Cronic exception is narrow)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (failure to oppose at points does not trigger Cronic presumption)
- People v. Hattery, 109 Ill.2d 449 (per se ineffectiveness where counsel unequivocally conceded guilt and presented no defense)
- People v. Ganus, 148 Ill.2d 466 (weak or implausible defense alone does not establish ineffectiveness)
- People v. Brooks, 158 Ill.2d 260 (inference of single payment where court sets a concrete deadline for restitution)