People v. Parada
167 N.E.3d 1115
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Hector Parada was tried, convicted, and sentenced in absentia (60 years) for possession with intent to deliver >900 g of cocaine after he left Illinois during the proceedings.
- Trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal in December 2000 and picked up the common-law record; the appellate court sua sponte dismissed the appeal eight months later for want of prosecution, noting Parada was a fugitive and no docketing statement, record, or brief had been filed.
- Parada remained at large, was extradited from California in 2009, moved to reinstate the appeal (denied), and then filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for abandoning the appeal.
- The circuit court advanced the petition to the second stage, appointed counsel, then dismissed the petition on the State’s motion.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Parada failed to show counsel’s deficiencies actually caused the forfeiture of his appeal because the dismissal was discretionary under the fugitive-disentitlement rule and was without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel’s failure to file docketing statement, record, and brief—leading to dismissal—established ineffective assistance of counsel (presumed prejudice) | The State: No prejudice; the appeal would have been dismissed due to Parada’s fugitive status; disentitlement/forfeiture bars relief | Parada: Counsel abandoned the appeal; under Moore/Edwards/Flores‑Ortega prejudice is presumed when counsel forecloses an appeal | Held: Denied. Because Parada was a fugitive and the appellate dismissal was discretionary and without prejudice, he failed to show counsel’s failure caused the forfeiture of the appeal; postconviction petition properly dismissed |
| Whether the fugitive disentitlement/fugitive‑dismissal rule justified dismissal and foreclosed relief | The State: Appellate court properly exercised discretion to dismiss a fugitive’s appeal; dismissal is without prejudice and reinstatement is the remedy after return | Parada: Partee and related authority allow convicted‑in‑absentia defendants to appeal; counsel’s failures effectively foreclosed appellate review | Held: The court affirmed that the fugitive dismissal rule applied; dismissal was attributable to Parada’s flight, not counsel’s conduct, and reinstatement remained the appropriate avenue upon return |
Key Cases Cited
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on a first appeal as of right)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel’s failure to perfect an appeal can give rise to presumed prejudice when it deprives defendant of an appeal)
- People v. Moore, 133 Ill. 2d 331 (1990) (postconviction relief available for lost appeals; prejudice may be presumed where counsel failed to perfect appeal)
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (2001) (adopting "presumption of prejudice plus" test under Flores‑Ortega)
- People v. Partee, 125 Ill. 2d 24 (1988) (appellate courts have discretion to refuse to hear a fugitive’s appeal; dismissal may be without prejudice)
- Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876) (early application of fugitive dismissal rationale)
- Ortega‑Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (1993) (discussing rationales for fugitive dismissal/disentitlement rule)