People v. Schoonover
2022 IL App (4th) 160882
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Hayze L. Schoonover was charged with four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child for alleged acts against his niece, M.L., who was under 13 at the time of the offenses.
- M.L. testified at trial to multiple incidents of sexual contact and oral sex; she described a distinctive pubic tattoo on Schoonover, which she identified from photos admitted at trial.
- A black notebook containing a written conversation was admitted; portions attributed to Schoonover included sexually explicit requests that corroborated M.L.’s account; M.L. and Schoonover’s wife (Sarita) identified the handwriting.
- M.L. made pretrial disclosures to family members and to a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) interviewer; the CAC interview and police interviews were played or admitted at trial.
- A jury convicted Schoonover on three counts; the court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 85 years (two 35-year terms and one 15-year term).
- Procedural posture: this court previously reversed on a public-trial/closure ground; the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded for consideration of Schoonover’s remaining claims: ineffective assistance and sentencing challenges. The appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Schoonover’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — opening the door to hearsay about A.G. | People: defense questioning opened the door, so testimony was admissible; any error was harmless. | Schoonover: counsel improperly opened the door to prejudicial hearsay (A.G.) and caused prejudice. | No Strickland prejudice; evidence of guilt was strong and the A.G. hearsay was insignificant. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to CAC bullying references and notebook hearsay | People: the bullying remark was brief, not tied to the offenses, and admission of the notebook was not prejudicial because the incriminating content was Schoonover’s own handwriting. | Schoonover: counsel failed to exclude emotional/prejudicial statements from CAC and M.L.’s written hearsay in the notebook. | No prejudice shown; bullying remarks limited and not clearly tied to the charges; notebook’s probative value rested on Schoonover’s own statements. |
| Plain-error review for unpreserved claims | People: alleged evidentiary errors are neither outcome-determinative nor structural; evidence was not closely balanced. | Schoonover: unpreserved errors warrant plain-error relief. | No plain error: not first-prong (evidence not closely balanced) and not second-prong (errors not structural). |
| Sentencing — personal sentencing policy & mitigation for dependents | People: court acted within its discretion, considered mitigation and aggravation. | Schoonover: trial judge applied a personal policy against considering mitigation for child-sex offenders and failed to give proper weight to hardship on dependents. | No abuse of discretion: court considered mitigating evidence; comments did not show categorical refusal to consider mitigation; evidence of excessive hardship to dependents was scant and inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- People v. Jackson, 162 N.E.3d 223 (Ill. 2020) (applies Strickland framework)
- People v. Simpson, 25 N.E.3d 601 (Ill. 2015) (defines reasonable-probability prejudice standard)
- People v. Smith, 745 N.E.2d 1194 (Ill. 2001) (prejudice requirement under Strickland)
- People v. Thompson, 939 N.E.2d 403 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error second-prong equated with structural error)
- People v. Bolyard, 338 N.E.2d 168 (Ill. 1975) (trial-court sentencing policy that categorically denies probation is reversible)
- People v. Alexander, 940 N.E.2d 1062 (Ill. 2010) (deference to trial court’s sentencing discretion)