People v. Reveles-Cordova
125 N.E.3d 410
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Alejandro Reveles-Cordova was tried twice for offenses arising from an incident on Nov. 20, 2010; this is an appeal following his 2016 retrial where a jury convicted him of criminal sexual assault and home invasion.
- Victim J.B. testified defendant forced entry, pushed her, removed a tampon and inserted his penis without consent; a sexual-assault kit detected defendant's DNA; photos showed a disheveled bedroom, vase and tampon on the floor; an active order of protection covered the residence.
- Defendant did not testify at the retrial after trial counsel warned of possible impeachment with prior trial testimony (omission of a story about hidden money); defense argued consent but did not present defendant’s testimony to support it.
- Trial court failed to fully comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (Zehr principles) during voir dire by not properly eliciting jurors’ understanding that a defendant’s silence cannot be held against him and by not confirming understanding of the right not to present evidence.
- Defendant filed posttrial motions raising Rule 431(b) plain-error review, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a Krankel (pro se ineffective-assistance) claim, and a one-act/one-crime merger claim; the trial court held a Krankel hearing but did not inquire into additional ineffective-assistance claims raised later.
- Appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it rejected plain-error and ineffective-assistance claims, found the initial Krankel inquiry adequate but ordered remand for inquiry into subsequent pro se claims, and rejected merger of convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Reveles-Cordova) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court compliance with Rule 431(b) (Zehr) and plain-error where evidence allegedly closely balanced | Error occurred but evidence not closely balanced; no prejudice | Trial court’s incomplete Zehr inquiry prejudiced defendant because evidence was closely balanced | Error conceded as to questioning, but no plain error — evidence not closely balanced; conviction stands |
| Ineffective assistance for (a) failing to obtain pre‑trial ruling on State’s impeachment with prior testimony about money and (b) abandoning consent defense | Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; defendant waived right to testify knowingly | Counsel promised a consent defense or unreasonably abandoned it after adverse ruling; prejudice from not testifying | No ineffective assistance — counsel’s performance not objectively unreasonable; defendant knowingly waived testimony |
| Adequacy of Krankel inquiry and failure to address subsequent pro se ineffective-assistance claims | Initial Krankel inquiry was adequate; but court should inquire into any subsequent claims | Trial court used Strickland too soon and failed to address later pro se claims, requiring further inquiry | Initial Krankel inquiry adequate; but trial court failed to inquire into additional claims raised later — remand required for successive Krankel inquiry |
| One-act, one-crime merger of home invasion and criminal sexual assault | Convictions may stand because offenses are not necessarily the same under the abstract-elements test | Sexual assault was a predicate to home invasion so convictions must merge | Convictions do not merge under controlling district precedent; both convictions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Zehr v. State, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (Ill. 1984) (articulating jury principles later embodied in Rule 431(b))
- Krankel v. People, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (requiring trial court inquiry into pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Herron v. People, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (closely-balanced evidence plain-error standard analogous to ineffective-assistance prejudice inquiry)
- Piatkowski v. People, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (plain-error doctrine framework)
- Moore v. People, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (scope of Krankel inquiry)
- Albanese v. People, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Ill. 1984) (adoption of Strickland in Illinois)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (defendant controls decision whether to testify)