2020 IL App (1st) 170650
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- June 4, 2003 shooting at a barber-trailer killed Randy Rangel Jr.; Harrison Hall (barber) was wounded. Defendant Donell Simmons was identified at trial and gave a written confession admitting he shot Rangel.
- At a bench trial (severed), testimony included Hall’s in-court ID, codefendant Ware’s testimony (plea-agreement witness), and the defendant’s handwritten confession; defendant convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 47+6 years.
- Postconviction: defendant filed pro se and counseled petitions asserting (inter alia) actual innocence (affidavits from Barbosa and Shardell) and ineffective assistance for trial counsel’s failure to investigate/call Shardell (an alleged eyewitness who said the shooter was not Simmons).
- The circuit court dismissed at the second stage: found Barbosa’s affidavit not conclusive, Shardell was discoverable and could not overcome the confession and eyewitnesses, and appellate counsel’s suppression claim meritless.
- On appeal this court: affirmed dismissal as to actual-innocence (Barbosa) and appellate-counsel (suppression) claims, but reversed and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing on the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present Shardell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual innocence based on Barbosa affidavit | Barbosa’s hearsay is inadmissible/insufficient to overcome overwhelming evidence (confession, eyewitness, codefendant). | Barbosa’s affidavit newly discovered and shows others admitted responsibility, so would probably change result. | Dismissed: Barbosa is not sufficiently conclusive to probably change a retrial result given the confessed crime and eyewitness/codefendant evidence. |
| Ineffective assistance (trial counsel) for failing to investigate/call Shardell | Shardell was listed in police reports; his testimony is not exonerating and would be outweighed by confession and other witnesses. | Counsel failed to interview a known, potentially exculpatory eyewitness whose testimony (shooter was someone else) would have undercut prosecution. | Reversed/Remanded: defendant made a substantial showing of deficient performance and prejudice; remand for third-stage evidentiary hearing on this claim. |
| Ineffective assistance (appellate counsel) for not challenging denial of motion to quash/suppress (investigative alert issue) | State presented ample probable-cause evidence (informants, confessions, statements) through investigating detective; suppression claim lacked merit. | Appellate counsel should have argued the arrest was invalid because the investigative-alert’s issuer didn’t testify and the record doesn’t show the alert had a proper basis. | Affirmed: denial of suppression was supported by record (investigating detective testified to facts supporting probable cause); appellate counsel not ineffective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (postconviction Act standards and stages)
- People v. Hyland, 2012 IL App (1st) 110966 (investigative-alert arrest insufficient where issuing officer/facts not shown)
- People v. Lawson, 298 Ill. App. 3d 997 (radio bulletin/investigative alert arrests require proof the issuing officer had probable cause)
- People v. Velasco, 2018 IL App (1st) 161683 (hearsay affidavits may be considered at second-stage postconviction proceedings under evidence-rule exception)