People v. Ramirez
2017 IL App (1st) 130022
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2012 a jury convicted Daniel Ramirez of four counts of attempted first-degree murder for firing multiple shots into a van carrying four people near a high school; he received four concurrent 40-year terms plus a 25-year firearm enhancement.
- At sentencing the trial court referenced Ramirez’s conduct (shooting into a van at school dismissal) and remarked he was “involved in the gangs,” though Ramirez denied gang membership in his presentence report.
- On direct appeal Ramirez raised only sentencing claims (improper double-counting of firearm use and reliance on gang membership as an aggravating factor), acknowledged they were forfeited, and asked for plain-error review in a short, undeveloped way.
- The appellate court initially declined to reach the undeveloped plain-error claim and later modified its opinion after a supervisory order from the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider in light of intervening precedent.
- Ramirez later alleged his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to develop the plain-error argument; the supreme court ordered the appellate court to reconsider whether that ineffective-assistance claim could be addressed on direct appeal in light of People v. Veach.
- The appellate court concluded the sentencing court did not err and, even assuming counsel was deficient for not developing plain-error, Ramirez suffered no prejudice because a developed argument would not have succeeded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to properly develop a plain-error sentencing argument | Ramirez: appellate counsel was deficient for failing to develop plain-error argument on sentencing errors | State: claim was waived and, in any event, the record does not show counsel’s deficiency caused prejudice | Court: appellate counsel may have been deficient, but Ramirez was not prejudiced because no sentencing error occurred, so the ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Whether the trial court improperly considered firearm use as aggravating when a statutory firearm enhancement applied | Ramirez: court’s mention of shooting double-counted conduct already subject to enhancement | State: passing reference to shooting is permissible; trial court may consider harms and circumstances not inherent to the offense | Court: no error — sentencing references to shooting and neighborhood risk were proper aggravating considerations and not impermissible double-counting |
| Whether the trial court relied on unproven gang membership as an aggravating factor | Ramirez: court relied on gang membership not in evidence to aggravate sentence | State: court’s comment addressed Ramirez’s involvement in gang activity (conduct shown) rather than affirmatively relying on proven membership | Court: no error — court’s observation that Ramirez was “involved in the gangs” was supported by conduct and not used as an improper factor |
| Whether plain-error review under second prong (egregious error) applies absent a developed argument on the record | Ramirez: trial court’s comments deprived him of a fair sentencing hearing under second prong | State: Ramirez forfeited plain-error review by failing to develop the argument; and no clear/obvious error occurred | Court: no plain error — no sentencing error shown, so second-prong review unnecessary; forfeiture notwithstanding, merits fail |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649 (Ill. 2017) (direct appellate review of ineffective-assistance claims should be decided case-by-case; courts should not categorically refuse to review claims when the record permits)
- People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 (Ill. 2016) (second-prong plain error review not limited to a short list of structural errors; courts must consider whether errors affected fairness)
- People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error standard: clear and obvious error plus closely balanced evidence at sentencing or egregious error denying fair sentencing hearing)
- People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (Ill. 2007) (a sentence within statutory limits is presumed valid)
- People v. Golden, 229 Ill. 2d 277 (Ill. 2008) (prejudice for appellate-ineffectiveness claims requires more than mere forfeiture; defendant must show appeal would have succeeded)
- People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490 (Ill. 2010) (reiterating that prejudice requires showing that, but for counsel’s deficiency, the outcome would have been different)