People v. Downs
175 N.E.3d 684
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Mark A. Downs was convicted in 2009 of first‑degree murder based largely on testimony from co‑defendants who received lenient deals and payments.
- After conviction and before sentencing, Downs filed extensive pro se claims (34 allegations) alleging trial‑counsel ineffectiveness; the trial court conducted a Krankel preliminary inquiry but converted it into an adversarial hearing and dismissed the claims.
- This court reversed (Downs I), remanding for appointment of new (Krankel) counsel and a proper second‑step Krankel hearing. The same attorney was reappointed; he largely declined to adopt Downs’s specific allegations and filed only a general claim. The trial court denied relief.
- On appeal this court initially addressed a jury reasonable‑doubt instruction issue (Downs II); the Illinois Supreme Court resolved that issue in the State’s favor (Downs III) and remanded for consideration of the Krankel counsel effectiveness claim.
- The appellate court now considers whether Krankel counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present nonfrivolous, specific claims (notably the alibi and a potential witness "Baby"/Acevedo), and whether Downs was thereby deprived of a meaningful second‑step Krankel hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krankel counsel was ineffective for abandoning specific claims and presenting only a general claim | Krankel counsel reasonably reviewed the record, followed postconviction‑style procedures, and properly declined to press claims he deemed frivolous | Counsel abdicated his role by not consulting Downs, not investigating witnesses, and failing to present nonfrivolous claims (alibi, Acevedo) | Counsel abdicated duties by not presenting nonfrivolous claims; ineffective assistance of Krankel counsel established; reversal and remand required |
| Whether the alibi claim (Patricia’s affidavit) was nonfrivolous and required presentation | State: alibi lacked corroboration and was strategic/nonmeritorious; no prejudice shown | Downs: alibi supported by affidavit and raises neglect (failure to investigate) not mere strategy; nonfrivolous | Alibi claim was nonfrivolous (investigation lapse plausible due to time lapse); counsel should have presented it |
| Whether the Acevedo ("Baby") lead was nonfrivolous and required investigation/presentation | State: police reports and Hernandez’s statements were dead ends; trial court previously dismissed as rumor | Downs: he informed trial counsel of Acevedo’s identity; counsel failed to investigate a potentially exculpatory lead | Acevedo allegation was nonfrivolous; Krankel counsel’s failure to pursue it showed abdication |
| Appropriate remedy / prejudice standard when Krankel counsel abdicates | State: defendant must show prejudice; underlying claims lack merit so no prejudice | Downs: where counsel provided virtually no representation at second step, prejudice is presumed and process was denied | Because counsel abdicated, prejudice is presumed; remand for a new second‑step Krankel hearing with new counsel (not the same attorney) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Krankel two‑step inquiry and counsel appointment principles)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (distinguishing frivolous from nonfrivolous claims)
- People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 (strategic decisions by counsel generally immune from ineffective‑assistance review)
- People v. Downs, 2015 IL 117934 (Illinois Supreme Court decision addressing jury reasonable‑doubt response and remanding Krankel issue)