People v. Rodriguez

2022 IL App (1st) 200315

220 N.E.3d 1183

468 Ill.Dec. 404

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Wilialdo RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-20-0315

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed May 27, 2022

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Kyle R. Sullivan, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, David Iskowich, and David B. Greenspan, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Wilialdo Rodriguez was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse and sentenced to consecutive prison terms of seven and three years. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to ascertain from potential jurors that they understood and accepted his right to not present evidence, as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). He also contends that the court erred by viewing a recording of the complainant's victim-sensitive interview (see 725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2018) ) outside defendant's presence without first obtaining his waiver of his right to be present and by admitting the interview into evidence without publishing it. Lastly, defendant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not filing and arguing a motion to suppress his postarrest statements. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. JURISDICTION

¶ 3 On August 1, 2019, a jury found defendant guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The court sentenced him to a total of 10 years’ imprisonment on November 25, 2019, issued the mittimus on December 23, 2019, and corrected the mittimus to account for presentencing detention credit on January 2, 2020. On defendant's February 18, 2020, motion in this court, we granted him leave to file a late notice of appeal, which he filed. This court has jurisdiction in this matter, pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) and Rule 606(c) (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case, including extension of the time to file a notice of appeal.

¶ 4 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Following his August 2015 arrest, defendant was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse of A.P. between October 1 and November 30, 2014, when she was under 13 years old and he was at least 17 years old. The former consisted of defendant inserting his finger into A.P.’s "sex organ," and the latter consisted of defendant touching A.P.’s breast with his hand for the sexual arousal or gratification of himself or A.P.

¶ 6 In December 2015, the court ordered a behavioral clinical examination (BCX) of defendant's fitness to stand trial. In January 2016, a psychologist of the court's Forensic Clinical Services reported to the court that she examined defendant in December 2015 and opined that he was fit to stand trial, as he was "not manifesting symptoms of a psychiatric condition that would preclude his fitness" and was aware of the charges against him and the nature of the legal proceedings. He understood the roles of various courtroom personnel and was "capable of assisting in his defense, if he so chooses." He was not prescribed any psychotropic medication at that time. The psychologist reported that she could not opine as to defendant's ability to understand Miranda ( Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ) warnings at his arrest "due to his lack of cooperation with this portion of the evaluation."

¶ 7 A. Admission of A.P.’s Statements

¶ 8 In June 2016, the State filed a motion for a hearing on the admissibility of statements by A.P. under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2018) ). Specifically, the State sought to admit A.P.’s "outcry to family members" Alondra, Alejandra, and Melissa and to Dr. Yesenia Castro-Caballero, as well as her forensic interview by Marilyn Soto and trial testimony. The statements to family members that defendant inserted his finger in A.P.’s vagina were documented in police reports, and the forensic interview to the effect that defendant inserted his finger in her vagina and touched her breasts was videorecorded.

¶ 9 Also in June 2016, the court granted a request by defense counsel to order that he be allowed to bring a laptop computer into jail "so we can review videos with" defendant.

¶ 10 The defense did not respond in writing to the State's section 115-10 motion.

¶ 11 In January 2017, the State told the court that it inadvertently omitted A.P.’s mother as an outcry witness in its section 115-10 motion and had since notified the defense of its intent to add her to the motion. The court granted the State leave to amend the motion on its face.

¶ 12 A hearing was held on the motion in February 2017. The court stated for the record at the beginning of the hearing that defendant was present, as well as his counsel and the State, and that the court had "reviewed the forensic interview."

¶ 13 Alondra testified that she and Alejandra are twins and were 14 years old as of the hearing, Melissa is their younger sister, they are all the daughters of defendant and Nelida Santana, and A.P. is their cousin. Her family had a party on Halloween 2014, with Alondra's parents hosting and cousins and friends attending, after which A.P. slept over in Melissa's bedroom. A.P. seemed to enjoy the party. At some point in the night, she came into the bedroom shared by Alondra and Alejandra and awakened Alondra. A.P. seemed "scared" but was not crying. She said that Alondra's father, defendant, had touched her. She did not provide any details, and both Alondra and Alejandra told her to go back to sleep. A.P. said that she may have been dreaming. She stayed in the bedroom with Alondra and Alejandra and went home the next day. Alondra did not press A.P. for details about her statement but "just left it."

¶ 14 On cross-examination, Alondra testified that A.P.’s younger brother, Erik, did not attend the Halloween party. Alondra and the others went to sleep late that night, at about 9 or 10 p.m., because they cleaned up after the party. A.P. never mentioned or discussed bad dreams with Alondra before that night. Until the next morning, nobody left the bedroom after A.P. came in. When asked if A.P. "had any strong feelings good or bad about" defendant before that night, Alondra replied that "our family was really close, so like we all liked each other."

¶ 15 On redirect examination, Alondra testified that she saw A.P. frequently at school and at family parties. They were friends and had discussed private matters. Defendant was A.P.’s godfather, and Alondra believed that A.P. and defendant had a good relationship until that night.

¶ 16 Alejandra testified that A.P. is her younger cousin, who she knew her "whole life." They had a good relationship, attending the same school and going to family parties. Her family had a party on Halloween 2014 with Alejandra's parents hosting and friends and A.P. attending, after which A.P. slept over in Melissa's bedroom. At some point in the night, A.P. came into Alejandra and Alondra's bedroom and awakened Alejandra with her crying. She had seemed happy and had not been crying earlier that night. A.P. explained to Alejandra and Alondra why she was crying: defendant had touched her. She did not give any details. Alejandra told her it was a dream, or possibly Alondra said so, but A.P. herself did not say it had been a dream. Alejandra told A.P. to go back to sleep, which she did in Alejandra and Alondra's bedroom, and Alejandra went back to sleep. "We didn't br[ing] it up ever since," except that Alejandra discussed it with Alondra after that night. Before that night, Alejandra and A.P. had discussed social matters "sometimes" but did not "really" discuss secrets or private matters.

¶ 17 On cross-examination, Alejandra testified that A.P.’s brother did not attend the party or sleep in Alejandra and Alondra's bedroom that night. A.P. did not seem scared during the Halloween party and they went to bed about 10:30 p.m. Alejandra did not recall A.P. mentioning bad dreams before that night. A.P. had liked defendant as her godfather. After A.P. said that defendant had touched her, Alondra left the bedroom to see if he was awake or asleep.

¶ 18 Sandra Santana, A.P.’s mother, testified that A.P. was born in October 2005, defendant was her godfather, and they had gotten along well. In April 2015, Sandra was playing with A.P. When Sandra tickled her, she asked Sandra not to touch her body. Sandra said "I told you *** not to let your uncles *** touch you." A.P. cried and said she had something to tell. Sandra asked what it was, and A.P. replied that "my uncle Willie touched me." She was still crying. She added that defendant touched her in his home, in Melissa's bedroom, when she slept over for Halloween. He got into bed with her, removed her bra, and touched her breast and then her vagina. While she pretended to sleep, "it was hurting a lot." She then went to the bedroom of defendant's twin daughters, where she reported that defendant touched her and they told her that she had been dreaming and took her to bed with them. When A.P. recounted this to Sandra, she pointed to her breasts and vaginal area. A.P. was not in trouble for anything when she reported this to Sandra. Sandra took A.P. to a physician, who asked A.P. if anyone had touched her. She replied "yes," added that "her godfather had grabbed her," and gave the same details she gave Sandra.

¶ 19 On cross-examination, Sandra testified that she got along well with defendant and believed him to be a good father before A.P.’s report....