People v. Pacheco
2013 IL App (4th) 110409
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Maria Pacheco, born June 26, 1994, was charged as an adult for three counts of first-degree murder (accountability) related to her uncle Arnulfo Pacheco's death during a robbery, plus counts for robbery and unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle.
- A co-defendant, Jarrod Riley, participated in the robbery and murder; his text messages with Pacheco were central to the State’s case and were admitted after authentication challenges.
- The State introduced text messages between Pacheco and Riley showing a plan to attack Arnulfo, obtain his car, and later kill him; Riley testified about Pacheco’s involvement.
- The jury convicted Pacheco of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle, robbery (accountability), and first-degree murder (accountability); she was sentenced to 30 years for murder.
- Pacheco appealed arguing (i) lack of separate verdict forms for each murder theory, (ii) ineffective assistance of counsel related to the felony-murder concession and impeachment, (iii) automatic transfer and adult sentencing for juveniles, (iv) truth-in-sentencing for minors, and (v) sentencing credit.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction as modified and remanded to award additional sentencing credit; dissent urged Miller v. Alabama concerns about automatic transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate verdict forms were required for each murder theory | Pacheco asserts lack of separate verdicts prejudiced appeal. | State contends no mandatory need for separate verdicts; general verdict suffices. | No reversible error; verdict form protocol not prejudicial under record. |
| Ineffective assistance by conceding guilt based on felony murder | Counsel’s concession was not a legitimate strategy; Chandler controls. | Record shows legitimate trial strategy amid overwhelming evidence. | No reversible error; strategy reasonable given evidence and defendant's own testimony. |
| Constitutionality of automatic transfer and adult sentencing for 15–16-year-olds | Automatic transfer and adult sentence violate due process and Eighth Amendment as interpreted by Miller, Roper, Graham. | Statutes are constitutional; Miller is distinguishable; age-based transfer is permissible. | Automatic transfer and adult-sentence framework upheld as constitutional; no due process or eighth amendment violation in this context. |
| Truth-in-sentencing applicability to minors convicted by accountability or felony murder | Automatic truth-in-sentencing for minors is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and Illinois Constitution. | Truth-in-sentencing does not violate constitutional limits here. | Not unconstitutional; imposed sentencing framework upheld. |
| Additional sentence credit owed for time in Tennessee | Defendant seeks six extra days credit. | Credit already improperly calculated; seeks full adjustment. | Six days of credit awarded; otherwise sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile death-penalty protections; Eighth Amendment context)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juveniles and life without parole for nonhomicide offenses; proportionality)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. _ (2012) (constitutional limits on mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders)
- People v. Salas, 2011 IL App (1st) 091880 (2011) (automatic transfer statute deemed not to impose punishment; mechanism issue)
- People v. J.S., 103 Ill. 2d 395 (1984) (due process in juvenile transfer considerations)
- People v. Patterson, 2012 IL App (1st) 101573 (2012) (procedural propriety in juvenile transfer context)
- People v. Croom, 2012 IL App (4th) 100932 (2012) (due process and automatic transfer; Miller distinction)
- People v. Reed, 125 Ill. App. 3d 319 (1984) (due process and sentencing considerations in juvenile cases)