People v. Vargas
350 Ill. Dec. 750
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Anthony Brown was fatally shot in Streamwood, Illinois on November 5, 2006; Vargas and Luna were charged with first degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated discharge of a firearm; trial evidence included eyewitness testimony and Vargas’s videotaped statement; Vargas was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms of 50, 26, and 6 years; the State conceded that aggravated discharge of a firearm violated the one-act, one-crime rule and some fines were improper; this court previously remanded and then, per supervisory order, vacated and reconsidered the appeal; the case is remanded for a limited Krankel inquiry into Vargas’s pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance claim; the State’s concessions reduce some issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 431(b) voir dire inquiry | Vargas argues voir dire failed to inform on defendant’s right not to testify | Vargas asserts Rule 431(b) not satisfied; failure prejudicial | No reversible error; substantial compliance with Rule 431(b) |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument fairness | State’s rebuttal argument was proper given evidence | Arguments were inflammatory and prejudicial | No reversible error; arguments within permissible scope |
| Krankel posttrial ineffectiveness claim | Trial court failed to conduct Krankel inquiry | Pro Se claim requires inquiry and potential counsel appointment | Remand for limited Krankel inquiry to determine merit; if meritorious, new trial; if not, affirmed as modified per concessions |
| One-act, one-crime and fines issues | Aggravated discharge conviction violates one-act, one-crime; fines improper | Challenge preserved via direct appeal | Aggravated discharge conviction vacated; fines to be vacated; remand for Krankel inquiry |
| Sufficiency of trial evidence | Evidence supports first degree murder and other convictions | Challenged aspects of state’s theory | Evidence deemed sufficient; no challenge to sufficiency squarely preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (Ill.2d 2010) (rule requiring explicit Rule 431(b) inquiry; supervisory order context)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (Ill.2d 2007) (plain-error doctrine framework)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (Ill.2d 2005) (plain-error standard applied to trial fairness)
- People v. Keene, 169 Ill.2d 1 (Ill.2d 1995) (plain-error/harmless-error framework)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (Ill.2d 2003) (Krankel posttrial ineffective-assistance framework)
- People v. Strickland, 363 Ill.App.3d 598 (Ill.App.3d 2006) (de novo review for ineffectiveness)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (Ill.2d 1984) (initial inquiry for pro se ineffectiveness)
- People v. Jocko, 389 Ill.App.3d 247 (Ill.App.3d 2009) (remand for Krankel-related matters)
- People v. Moore, 385 Ill. App.3d 919 (Ill.App.3d 2008) (guidance on Krankel remand)