Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

May 17, 2018

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYRELL JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois, Circuit No. 08-CF-734 Honorable David Martin Carlson, Judge, Presiding.

          PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McDade and O'Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          CARTER PRESIDING JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 Defendant, Tyrell Jackson, appeals his conviction for first degree murder. Defendant argues that the circuit should have permitted him to withdraw his guilty plea because plea counsel failed to advise him of shoeprint evidence prior to the plea, and plea counsel labored under a per se conflict of interest. Defendant also argues that the matter should be remanded for new postplea proceedings in strict compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). We affirm.

         ¶ 2 FACTS

         ¶ 3 Defendant, along with four co-defendants, was charged with two counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2), (a)(3) (West 2008)) for causing the death of John Rosales by shooting Rosales with a handgun. Defendant and the four co-defendants were also charged with home invasion (id. § 12-11(a)(3), (a)(5)) and armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)). Defendant alone was charged with an additional count of home invasion (id. § 12-11(a)(5)). Assistant Public Defenders Edward Jaquays and Gabriel Guzman were appointed to represent defendant. Jaquays worked part time as a public defender and part time in private practice.

         ¶ 4 Defendant filed a motion to suppress statements that he made to the police. The trial court denied the motion. During several pretrial hearings, including the hearing on the motion to suppress, Nicole Moore was one of the assistant state's attorneys who appeared on behalf of the State.

         ¶ 5 The matter proceeded to a stipulated bench trial. The court found defendant guilty of first degree murder and sentenced defendant to 70 years' imprisonment. On appeal, we reversed defendant's conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial. People v. Jackson, 2012 IL App (3d) 100693-U, ¶ 55. We held that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress his statements to the police. Id. ¶ 53.

         ¶ 6 On remand, Guzman and Jaquays were reappointed to represent defendant. On the day a jury trial was set to commence, one of the assistant state's attorneys informed the court that Nicole Moore was an associate in Jaquays's private law office at that time. The assistant state's attorney asked that defendant waive the conflict on the record. The following exchange occurred:

"THE COURT: [Defendant], would you approach, sir? Would you approach with your attorney over here?

         *** I think that is a point that we should consider both for your sake and for Mr. Jaquays' sake.

         It's my understanding, [defendant], obviously I wasn't involved in the first trial, that one of the prosecutors on that trial was a lady, a female attorney named Nicole Moore. She was a prosecutor on the matter. And Miss Moore is now an associate with Mr. Jaquays; do you understand that?

         THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

         THE COURT: And what the prosecutor is asking you is does that bother you in any way, shape or form that-I understand that Mr. Jaquays is representing you as a Public Defender, is that right, sir?

         [JAQUAYS]: Yes, Judge, I am.

         THE COURT: And that she is part of his private law office, which is separate and apart, but we still would like to put on the record that you don't have any problem with that if you don't; is that all right with you?

         THE DEFENDANT: I mean not really.

THE COURT: Stop.
THE DEFENDANT: He never talked to me about none of this.

         THE COURT: Mr. Jaquays, here's what I'm going to do, I'm going to ask you to speak about this situation to [defendant].

         [Defendant], nobody wants to put you in a situation where you are uncomfortable, at least of all Mr. Jaquays, so I'm going to give you a few minutes to speak about that situation that [the prosecutor] has brought up to you and explain to you what's going on here and take that minute. Go ahead. Take whatever time you want."

         ¶ 7 When the parties went back on the record, the court asked defendant if he still had any concerns. Defendant replied: "No, I'm fine. He explained to me the situation." The following exchange occurred:

"THE COURT: I'm going to phrase it this way, the fact that Miss Moore at some point I guess, like I said I wasn't involved in this case at that point, was one of the co-prosecutors in this case?
MR. JAQUAYS: That's correct.
[ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY]: She was.
THE COURT: And she is now part of his private law office; that gives you no concern, sir, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.