People v. Matute, 2020 IL App (2d) 170786

Defendant Edwin L. Matute, L.M.’s cousin, was tried by bench for predatory criminal sexual assault of an 11‑year‑old girl (J.M.) and convicted on three of five charged counts.
Alleged offenses occurred in L.M.’s apartment between April 1, 2014 and July 20, 2014; J.M. testified to multiple episodes of intercourse (some oral) and described locations and condom use.
Detectives interviewed Matute at the station in Spanish; officer Ulloa read Miranda warnings from a Spanish form, Matute responded that he understood, and he made inculpatory statements admitting to multiple sexual encounters.
DNA testing found semen on a condom recovered from the toilet; laboratory analysts concluded the condom stains were consistent with the same male contributor and Matute could not be excluded as a contributor for portions of the profile.
Trial court denied Matute’s amended suppression motion (finding a knowing Miranda waiver) and denied a directed finding; Matute was sentenced to 27 years (three consecutive 9‑year terms).
On appeal the court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the sentencing court relied on Matute’s lack of allocution/silence as an aggravating factor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of motion to suppress — Miranda waiver	Ulloa read Miranda in Spanish; Matute said he understood and spoke/responded in Spanish; waiver was knowing and voluntary	Matute lacked understanding of Miranda (recent arrival, Spanish‑only, nervous), was coerced/promised help, did not sign waiver	Trial court credited officer; waiver was knowing and intelligent; suppression denial affirmed
Sufficiency of evidence for three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault	Confession admitting three intercourse acts + J.M.’s specific testimony about multiple penetrations + DNA evidence consistent with same male contributor	Victim’s statements contained inconsistencies (number of incidents) and DNA was not a perfect 15/15 match	Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find three separate penetrations beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed
Sentencing — reliance on lack of allocution / silence as aggravating	Court properly relied on PSI statements and other aggravating factors; any reference to lack of allocution was not outcome‑determinative	Sentencing court penalized Matute’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right (no allocution/denial) — impermissible negative inference at sentencing	Use of Matute’s silence/lack of allocution was an improper aggravating factor; plain error affecting fundamental liberty found; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning and waiver principles)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (generally forbids negative inference from defendant’s failure to testify)
People v. Bernasco, 138 Ill. 2d 349 (1990) (definition of "intelligent knowledge" for Miranda waiver)
People v. Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d 289 (1997) (lack of remorse may be inferred from admissible evidence of the defendant’s statements or conduct)
People v. Voit, 355 Ill. App. 3d 1015 (2004) (resentencing required when an improper aggravating factor affected the sentence unless its weight was insignificant)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (2007) (plain‑error framework for excusing forfeiture)