People v. Navarro
197 N.E.3d 748
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In March 2005 Navarro shot and killed Israel Lucena and shot at Fernando Escobedo; two eyewitnesses initially identified a non-defendant as resembling the shooter but later identified Navarro; an accomplice (Adam Garcia) also implicated Navarro.
- At trial Navarro presented no evidence; a jury convicted him of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated discharge of a firearm; aggregate sentence 80 years.
- Navarro’s direct appeal and an earlier (2010) postconviction petition were unsuccessful; in August 2018 he sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert on eyewitness identification reliability.
- The trial court denied leave to file the successive petition; Navarro appealed that denial.
- Navarro argued Lerma constituted a ‘‘massive shift’’ in the law about admitting expert testimony on eyewitness ID and thus established cause for his failure to raise the ineffective-assistance claim earlier; the State did not concede cause.
- The appellate court held Navarro failed to establish cause for his delay because the possibility of offering expert testimony on eyewitness identification existed under People v. Enis, so the ineffectiveness claim was available on direct appeal; therefore leave was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Navarro showed cause and prejudice to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an eyewitness-identification expert | People: Claim was available earlier (Enis allowed such expert testimony in appropriate cases); Navarro could have raised it on direct appeal; no showing of cause or prejudice | Navarro: Lerma marked a major change in the law about admitting expert testimony on eyewitness ID, excusing his prior failure to raise the ineffective-assistance claim | Denied. Navarro failed to show cause; Enis made the issue available earlier, Wrice is inapposite, and the court need not reach prejudice. Leave to file was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d 264 (1990) (held expert testimony on eyewitness identification permissible in proper circumstances, but cautioned against overuse)
- People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381 (2002) (explains successive postconviction petitions undermine finality)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (2009) (defines "prejudice" standard for postconviction claims as error that infected the entire trial)
- People v. Lerma, 2016 IL 118476 (2016) (recognized scientific research on eyewitness ID as well settled and encouraged admissibility of expert testimony in appropriate cases)
- People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860 (2012) (reversed denial of leave to file a second successive petition where newly available corroborating report established cause)