Supreme Court Summaries

Opinions filed September 18, 2008

No. 105368     People v. Hernandez

Appellate citation:Nos. 1-04-2776, 1-06-2052 cons. (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

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

      Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.

      In 1999, Jaime Cepeda’s abuse of Juan Hernandez in attempt to collect a drug debt led to an unlawful use of weapons charge against Cepeda. He retained attorney John DeLeon, but failed to appear in court in early 2001 and fled the country. DeLeon’s representation was not withdrawn because of Cepeda’s absence, although he has not seen or heard from that client since.

      Meanwhile, Hernandez devised a plan to get even with Cepeda, culminating in events in 2000 that were the basis of a charge of solicitation of Cepeda’s murder for hire. As to this charge, in 2003, Hernandez retained attorney DeLeon, not knowing of his representation of Cepeda. Neither DeLeon nor the prosecution informed the Cook County circuit court of this matter, and, in bench trial proceedings, Hernandez was convicted.

      While Hernandez’s direct appeal was pending, he filed a postconviction petition complaining of his attorney’s representation of the victim. The circuit court, after an evidentiary hearing, denied the petition, and the appellate court, after consolidating the postconviction proceedings and the direct appeal, affirmed.

      In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that there had been a per se conflict of interest when counsel represented both defendant Hernandez and his purported victim, Cepeda, with counsel and the prosecution failing to inform the defendant and the court of this. Aggravating these circumstances was the fact that it was Cepeda’s abuse of Hernandez that gave rise to the earlier weapons charge against Cepeda as to which DeLeon represented him.

      The solicitation conviction was reversed. Because the evidence was sufficient to convict, there is no double jeopardy bar to retrial.