People v. Ramirez-Lucas
2017 IL App (2d) 150156
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Ramirez-Lucas returned to El Tenampa bar after being ejected following a restroom fight; he carried a loaded .45 handgun and, after re-entering, multiple shots were fired, leaving two men dead and others wounded.
- At trial, Ramirez-Lucas testified he fired in self-defense after being grabbed and attacked; witnesses gave varying accounts of who initiated violence and when shots were fired.
- The jury convicted him of first-degree felony murder (based on aggravated discharge of a firearm) and related offenses; he was sentenced to natural life imprisonment.
- On postconviction review, Ramirez-Lucas alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call three bar patrons (Soto, Ildefonso, Tello) whose affidavits said the defendant was grabbed from behind, yelled "Don’t touch me!", shot at the floor, and was then attacked.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit, finding the affidavits cumulative or conclusory. Ramirez-Lucas appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for second-stage postconviction proceedings, concluding the petition raised an arguable ineffective-assistance claim and that the witnesses’ affidavits were noncumulative corroboration of the self-defense theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction petition should be summarily dismissed | State: affidavits are cumulative, conclusory, and would have been unknown to counsel; no arguable merit | Ramirez-Lucas: counsel failed to investigate and call three occurrence witnesses whose affidavits corroborate his self-defense claim | Reversed: petition raises the gist of an ineffective-assistance claim; proceed to second-stage postconviction with new counsel appointed |
| Whether counsel’s failure to discover/call witnesses can be ineffective assistance | State: counsel could not reasonably have known or found these witnesses; failure not deficient | Ramirez-Lucas: counsel knew there were many patrons who could support his defense and failed to inquire, so investigation was deficient | Arguable deficiency: given defendant told counsel there were patrons who could corroborate and most patrons were related, it is arguable counsel should have investigated further |
| Whether proposed affidavits would be merely cumulative | State: testimony would duplicate defendant’s trial testimony and thus be cumulative | Ramirez-Lucas: affidavits add independent corroboration and specific details on being grabbed, bottle thrown, and pool-cue blow — going to the ultimate issue of self-defense | Not cumulative: affidavits would corroborate and add details on ultimate self-defense issue, so not a basis for dismissal |
| Whether testimonial inconsistencies defeat the petition | State: affidavits conflict with defendant’s account, undermining prejudice claim | Ramirez-Lucas: inconsistencies are explainable by chaotic scene and do not preclude consideration at later stages | Conflicts not resolvable at summary stage; credibility and weight are for later proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong standard)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (failure to investigate occurrence witnesses can state arguable ineffective-assistance claim)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (Ill. 1998) (de novo review of summary dismissal)
- People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410 (Ill. 1996) (liberal construction and "gist" standard for postconviction petitions)
- People v. Vernon, 276 Ill. App. 3d 386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (postconviction proceedings are collateral attacks and affidavits must support allegations)