People v. Medina
2022 IL App (3d) 180493
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Miguel Medina was charged with DUI, driving while license revoked, and driving without insurance after police stopped his silver Ford Taurus following an anonymous report; officers observed signs of intoxication and he refused a breath test.
- At the bond hearing the court appointed the public defender, set a $50,000 bond (requiring $5,000 to be posted), and later discharged the public defender after bond was posted, telling Medina to hire private counsel.
- Defense counsel, during cross-examination, elicited testimony that an anonymous caller reported Medina had threatened to return to a bar and shoot someone and that officers believed he might have a gun (no gun was recovered).
- Officer Villagomez conducted standardized field sobriety tests (in Spanish) and observed multiple clues of impairment (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); squad car video of the tests was admitted.
- A jury convicted Medina on all counts; he was sentenced to 30 days in jail (with credit for time served). He appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance for eliciting the threat/gun testimony and (2) the court violated his right to counsel by refusing to appoint counsel because a third party posted bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s elicitation of threat/gun testimony was ineffective assistance | State conceded cross-examination was deficient but argued no prejudice | Counsel’s elicitation made jurors more likely to convict by inflaming them with violence/gun allegations | Court: Counsel’s performance was deficient, but no Strickland prejudice because DUI evidence was overwhelming; conviction stands |
| Whether court violated right to counsel by discharging public defender after third party posted bond | State: Defendant never requested appointed counsel and later retained private counsel; no deprivation | Court dismissed PD solely because bond was posted, denying appointed counsel despite possible indigence | Court: Issue forfeited (no trial objection); on plain-error review no reversible error — defendant did not ask for PD and later had private counsel; no structural error (dissent disagrees) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong standard)
- People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140 (may proceed directly to prejudice prong)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (forfeiture of issues not raised in posttrial motion)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain-error doctrine two-prong framework)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (second-prong plain error equated with structural error)
- People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173 (discussion of structural error and trial integrity)
- People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581 (step-one of plain-error analysis)
- People v. MacTaggart, 2019 IL App (3d) 160583 (appointment error when defendant requests PD and affidavit shows indigency)
- People v. Wood, 91 Ill. App. 3d 414 (posting bail by a third party does not necessarily preclude a finding of indigency)