People v. Valadovinos, 22 N.E.3d 114

Background

In Feb 2010, outside a bar, Ignacio Valadovinos exited a car and fired five shots at Ernesto Fernandez; witnesses identified Valadovinos and police recovered a semiautomatic pistol and five cartridge cases.
Officers chased and arrested Valadovinos after he fled; he resisted and head-butted an officer; forensic testing matched the cartridge cases to the recovered pistol.
Indicted on multiple counts, Valadovinos was tried and convicted of attempted first degree murder with personal discharge of a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm (merged), and aggravated battery of a peace officer.
Jury instructions for attempted first degree murder used pattern language requiring intent to kill “an individual” rather than naming Ernesto; neither side objected to those instructions at trial or in the posttrial motion.
At sentencing the court imposed 23 years (within range) plus a 20-year firearm enhancement (total 43 years); defense presented mitigating evidence (age, no prior convictions, no one injured); prosecution presented aggravating evidence (gang affiliation, on bond for prior attempted murder charge).
The mittimus credited 517 days’ presentence custody though record showed 692 days; State did not oppose correction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction accuracy for attempted first-degree murder	Instruction followed pattern language and accurately stated law	Instruction was erroneous because it said intent to kill “an individual” rather than specifically naming Ernesto, risking juror confusion	No error: pattern instruction appropriate under facts; jurors were informed of victim identity throughout trial; no plain error
Jury note about aggravated discharge	Instruction for aggravated discharge was clear; jurors sought clarification	Note shows jurors confused and may have thought only general direction needed	No error: note concerned aggravated discharge; court’s response to continue was proper; verdict shows jurors found defendant aimed at Ernesto
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to instructions	Counsel acted reasonably given instruction was correct; no prejudice	Counsel ineffective for not objecting to or preserving instruction error	Rejected: instructions not erroneous, so no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland
Sentencing — weighing mitigation and use of aggravating factors	Sentence within statutory range and judge considered relevant factors; no improper reliance on factors inherent in offense	Judge failed to give proper weight to mitigation and relied on aggravating facts inherent to offense	Rejected: sentencing within range and entitled to deference; record shows consideration of mitigation; references to "level of violence" were permissible and not improper duplicative aggravation; mittimus credit corrected to 692 days

Key Cases Cited

People v. Malone, 37 Ill. App. 3d 185 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976) (victim's name need not be included in attempted murder instruction when facts make identity clear)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (standards for reviewing preserved and forfeited instruction errors)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (preservation rules for jury instruction challenges)
People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (Ill. 2010) (Rule 451(c) exception for substantial instructional defects)
People v. Reid, 136 Ill. 2d 27 (Ill. 1990) (trial court duties when jury asks for clarification on a point of law)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2004) (prohibition on using factors inherent in the offense as independent aggravating factors)
People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill. 2d 149 (Ill. 1977) (deference to sentencing court and its factfinding at sentencing)
People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256 (Ill. 1986) (sentencing court may consider facts relevant to seriousness of offense)
People v. Ward, 113 Ill. 2d 516 (Ill. 1986) (review of sentencing record as whole to determine reliance on improper factors)
People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48 (Ill. 1999) (trial court’s broad discretion at sentencing)
People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (Ill. 2000) (trial court’s superior position to evaluate sentencing factors)
People v. Rogers, 197 Ill. 2d 216 (Ill. 2001) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for sentencing court absent abuse of discretion)
People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2008) (preservation and review of sentencing claims on appeal)
People v. Garza, 125 Ill. App. 3d 182 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (defendant must show sentencing court relied on improper fact to justify reversal)
People v. Boclair, 225 Ill. App. 3d 331 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (sentences within statutory range presumed proper)
People v. Burnette, 325 Ill. App. 3d 792 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (presumption that sentencing court considered mitigation evidence)