People v. Orasco, 2016 IL App (3d) 120633-B

Jason Orasco was convicted by a Will County jury of three counts of first‑degree murder (merged), attempted first‑degree murder, home invasion, aggravated battery (merged), and armed robbery for a July 2009 robbery‑murder of two occupants of an apartment.
Evidence showed Orasco participated in planning and guiding the group to the victim’s apartment, entered with a bat, restrained victims, held a gun at times, and later split money and property taken after the crime.
Orasco gave a recorded post‑arrest statement saying he followed Matthew Edwards’s directions, was scared, and that Edwards had pointed a gun at him and threatened to kill him if he ran or snitched.
Defense counsel argued at trial that Orasco acted from fear / self‑preservation and also challenged accountability, but did not tender a jury instruction on the statutory affirmative defense of compulsion.
The jury found Orasco guilty on all counts. The trial court imposed concurrent and consecutive terms (noted counts merged); defendant appealed claiming ineffective assistance for failing to request a compulsion instruction and the State challenged sentencing under section 5‑8‑4(d)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Orasco)	Held
Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to tender a compulsion instruction?	Failure to instruct was not prejudicial because the evidence did not support compulsion.	Counsel should have requested compulsion; Orasco argued he acted under threat of death/great bodily harm.	No ineffective assistance: court found evidence insufficient to warrant compulsion instruction and no reasonable probability of different outcome.
May State challenge sentencing as non‑consecutive under section 5‑8‑4(d)(1) on appeal (was sentence void)?	The State argued statutory mandate required consecutive terms and that the sentencing order was incorrect and voidable.	Orasco conceded the issue at briefing.	Under People v. Castleberry, the State cannot mount a de facto cross‑appeal to increase sentences on defendant’s appeal; Castleberry abolished the void‑sentence rule, so the State’s challenge was barred. Convictions and sentences affirmed.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance standard)
People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (abolished void‑sentence rule; State may not challenge defendant’s sentence by cross‑appeal on defendant’s appeal)
People v. Pegram, 124 Ill. 2d 166 (minimal evidence suffices to raise affirmative defense and require instruction)
People v. Humphries, 257 Ill. App. 3d 1034 (compulsion unavailable if compulsion arises from defendant’s fault)
People v. Serrano, 286 Ill. App. 3d 485 (failure to instruct on trial theory can indicate ineffective assistance)