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.
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.
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?
think that is a point that we should consider both for your
sake and for Mr. Jaquays' sake.
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?
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
Yes, Judge, I am.
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?
DEFENDANT: I mean not really.
THE COURT: Stop.
THE DEFENDANT: He never talked to me about none of this.
COURT: Mr. Jaquays, here's what I'm going to do,
I'm going to ask you to speak about this situation to
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, ...