FOURTH DIVISION Decem ber 4, 2008
No. 1-07- 0782 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 04 CR 15587 ) RAFAE L AYALA, ) Ho no r ab le ) Ber t ina E. Lampk in, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEO'BR

IEN de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Defe ndan t, Rafael Ay al a, appeal s his convi

ction af ter a bench

trial of f irst degree m

urder and h is sentence of 27 y ears’ i mprisonm ent. On appeal , defen

dant contends: (1) hi s trial counsel pr o vid ed ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce by fa iling t o file a mo t io n t o su pp r es s his st at eme nt s; an d ( 2) his
se nt en ce o f 27 yea r s’ impr iso nme nt is e xc es sive
. We affir m. De fen da nt wa s c ha r ge d w it h t wo co un t s o f fir st de gr ee mur de rin t he de at h o f vic t im, Irma Cerri

to s (Irma). At def

endan t’s ben ch trial, Off

ic er Louis M artinez testi fi ed that on June 14, 2004, at appro xi

ma tely 4:40 a.m., he an

d hi s partner were di spatched to t he Patio Motel at 6220 N. Linco ln Avenue in Chicag o, Illinois. Whe n t hey arr ived, Officer M ar t inez wa s met by defen dant, who was descen

din g the stairs f

rom the second f

loor. Off ic er Martinez asked defend ant , in Eng lish, whet her he wa s t he pe rso n who had c alled t he po lice and d efenda nt responded af

fi rmati vel y. W hen Off ic er Martinez asked def

endan t why h e had cal le d the police, defen dant stated t hat he h

ad j ust kil le d hi s gi rlf rien d in roo m 29. Of

fi cer Martin

ez then arrested defendan t, read him

hi s Mi randa rights and placed him

in the po li ce car. Offi

cer Mart in

ez’s par t ner , O ffi

cer Esq uivel, sa t wit h defend ant in the c ar as O ffi cer Mar t inez and a se rg eant whoNo. 1-07- 0782

-2-

had j ust arrived i

nve stigated room 29. Off ic er Martinez testif

ie d that when h

e approached the room, he saw that the door was wide open . He en

tered a nd f ound I rm a l y i ng on the f l oor betwee

n the b ed an

d the wal l . The re was bloo d o n t he wa ll and on t he bed . I rma w as c ove re d in t he qu ilt fro m the be d and sho wed no signs of li fe. Of fi cer Martin

ez cal le d the parame dic s and returned to the polic e car. He agai n read defendan t his Mi randa righ ts. Defenda

nt then stated that he kil

le d Irma b ecause h

e was j eal ous and t hat he us ed a knife, w hich he lat er flushed d ow n t he t oilet . D efenda nt was t ra nspo rt ed t o t he pol i ce station , wh ere O f

f i cer M arti ne z turned de f

endan t over to Detectiv

e Fa nn i ng. Off ic er Martinez testif

ie d that at 6:30 a. m. on Jun e 14, 2004, Detect iv

e Fan ni ng in terviewe d defen

dant wi th Off ic er Martinez servi

ng as transl

ator . Durin

g the in terview, defen dant stated t hat he an

d Irma h ad been dating f or t wo years an

d they had set a date to see a
m ovi e on Satu rda y , Ju ne 12. How ever, when

he cal l ed he r on Ju ne 12 to c onf

i rm, sh e di d n ot
answ er t he pho ne. Defend ant st at ed t hat he we nt t o t he co rne r o f Clark and Wilso n St re et s and
saw Ir ma sitt ing in a vehicle wit h ano t her man. H e t hen left t he ar ea. Lat er t hat evening, he cal l ed Irm a aga i n on her cel l phon e an d this ti me a m an clai m i ng to b e h er b oyf

ri end an swe

red. Defend ant informed t he man t hat Ir ma was his girlfriend a nd he a ske d t he man t o mee t him at t he
co rne r o f Clark and Wilso n St re et s. I rma ca lled defend ant five mi nut es lat er , t elling him

t hat t he
man wasgoi ng to the corne r of C l ark an

d Wi l son S treets wi

th thre e other p eople an

d they were going to kil

l de fen dant. Defen

dant told Detective F ann

in g and Of fi cer Martin

ez that he was enraged and jeal

ous. Of fic er Ma r t ine z t es t ifie d t ha t t he y as ke d d ef en da nt wh at ha pp en ed t he fo llo win g d ay,No. 1-07- 0782

-3-

Sunday, June 13. Def

endan t stat ed that on June 13, he v is ited hi s chi ldren . Sometim

e durin g that visit, defend ant went into t he kit chen a nd t oo k a k nife, which he hid in his boo t . D efenda nt stated t hat he took t he kn if e becaus e he was

je al ous and f

el t betrayed by

Irma, an d that he was going to kil

l h er. Defen dant had al

ready a rranged to meet Irma at the Patio Motel, a pl ace they f req ue nte d, af ter h i s v i si t wi th h i s chi l dre n. A t the motel , de f

en da nt a nd Irm a p roce ed ed

to room 29. Inside , d efenda nt hid t he knife in t he end t able by the bed w hen I rma w as no t loo king, and then the coupl e had sex

ual in tercour se. Af

terwards, defendan

t questioned Irma a

bout t he other
ma n, and s he repl ie d that t hey

were jus t fri ends an

d al though he was pursui

ng he r, she wan

ted
no t hing t o do wit h him. Of f i cer M arti ne z testif i ed th at they

spoke wi th de f endan t about wh

at ha ppen ed n ex t. Defe ndan t stat ed that Irma f

el l a sl eep. Wh

il e Irma sl ept, defendan

t snort ed cocain

e and returned t o t he bed . D efenda nt gr abbed her by the ne ck a nd held t he knife in o ne hand . I rma aw ok e and be gged def endan t for h er l i f e, tel l i ng h i m that sh e loved hi m . Def endan t stabb ed h

er i n the neck. As she t ried t o r oll o ver t o e sca pe, defend ant st abbed her seve ra l times in the back . D efenda nt t he n st r an gle d h er be ca us e h e w an t ed t o mak e s ur e s he wa s d ea d. Aft er she die d, de fen da nt t o ld her that he l

oved her, too k a shower, and f lus hed the kn

if e down the toil et. Approxim ately two hours la ter, defendan

t call ed Irma’ s si ster, Bert a, and he al so call ed the poli

ce. Defend ant agr eed t o g ive a video t ape d st at ement , a nd, at 3: 15 p .m. on J une 1 4, 200 4, he gave a si mi la r account to Detective F ann in g, Assistant Stat e's A

tt orney Ga

mbin o, and Off

ic er Munoz.Berta Cerritos test if ie d that she knew de fen

dant as Rub en Mal

ave an d that her si ster IrmaNo. 1-07- 0782

-4-

h ad da ted h i m f or a cou pl e of yea rs . O n Ju n e 1 4, 2 00 4, a

t ap pr ox i mate l y 4: 20 a. m ., B er

ta
re ceived a ca ll f

ro m defenda nt in which he said he wa s so rr y for k ill ing Ir ma. S he hung up t he pho ne and called I rma’s cell pho ne. Defend ant answ er ed t he pho ne and aga in to ld Ber t a t hat he had ki l l ed Irm a. Be rta told h er h usb and of her conv ersa tion wi th de f endan t, and he cal l ed 91 1. Berta then went to Ir ma's apartm ent but she was

not t here. Ka thleen Gah agan testi f i ed th at she an

d he r partner, Ca

rl Bras i c, f orens i c i nv esti gators with the C

hicago poli ce departmen

t, pro cessed room 29 on Jun e 14, 2004, at appro xi

ma tely 5:15 a.m. Ins ide , Investigator Gahagan saw bl ood o n the b eddi

ng, splatter ed on the wall, an d on Irma, who was co ver ed in bed ding. Inve st igat or Gaha gan s aw a bro ken c ell phone on a des k, and s he
saw an ashtray

contain in g ci garett e butts, a couple of em pty Spri te cans an d pla stic cups

on an end tabl e. The i nve stigators coll ected the physi cal evi dence, i ncl udin g a ni ne-i nch stain le ss steel knife wi th a bl ack pl astic h

andl e that was retrieved f

rom the toil et. The parties stipul ated that tes ti ng on th e p hy si cal ev i de nc e f oun d that tw o of

the ci ga rette f i l ters matc he d the DNA

prof i l e of defen dant, with a m

in or pro fi le bei ng consistent with Irm

a. Swabs taken f

rom Irma' s vagi

na, mouth and a

nus contai

ned sem en. No blood o r fi

ngerpri nts sui table for compari son were taken f rom th e k n i f e. How ev

er , a pri n t tak en f rom th e toi l et s ea t m atch ed de f en da n t. The parties a

ls o stipul ated that t he m

edi cal exam in er, Clai re Cunl if fe, perf ormed an autopsy on Irma on J

une 15, 2004. An

external exam in ation revea

le d that Irma suf

fered a st abbing injury t o t he r ight side o f her ne ck a t t he bas e o f the sku ll, and fo ur st ab wo unds on t he l ef t si de of h er b ack. Two of

th ose wou n dspu n ctu re d h er l ef t l un g, c au si n g a h em orrh ag e i n to the lef t chest cavity. Irma al so had defensi ve wounds, st ab m

arks, o n her righ

t hand. There was aNo. 1-07- 0782

-5-

par t ial ring abr asio n in the 1 0 o 'cloc k t o 4 o'c lock po sitio n ar ou nd her neck , a s we ll as abra sions
o n he rch ee ks an d a br uis e o n t he r igh t sid e o f he rno se . Dr
. Cu nliffe o pin ed wit h a r ea so na ble de gr ee of sc i en ti f i c c er tai n ty th at Irm a d i ed f rom m ul ti pl e stab wou n dsan d th e m an n er of de ath was hom ic ide
. Defe ndan t t estif ie d that he began

dating Irm

a i n 2001 an d they move d in to gether. They st op ped livi

ng t og et her in 200 3 bec aus e o f jealou sy on bo t h sides. He a nd I rma co nt inued t o ha ve sexual relations, however, and they had sex at the Pat io Motel at least fiv e times b etween August 20 03 an d J un e 2 00 4. On

Ju n e 1 2, 2 00 4, I

rm a w as su pp ose d to c al

l de f en da n t aroun d 3 p.m . to make a rr ange ments t o s ee a movie. Ir ma did no t call defend ant at 3 p. m., so he ca lled her but she did n ot answer the ph

one. Defen

dant stated t hat he cal

le d her phone 20 to 30 tim es between

3 p.m . and 7 p.m. At 7 p.m ., a m an an swe red h er ph one a nd s tated tha t Irma was

his gi rl f ri end. Defe ndan t answered, "she

is not your girl

fri end, she i s m

y w if e for three y

ears." The m

an stated h e h ad b een Irm a' s b oyf rien d f or a l on g ti me. They de ci de d to m eet at C l ar

k a n d W i l son Str eets to "r es ol v e th e p rob l em." Irm

a c al l ed de f en da n t ap pr ox i mate l y f i v e m i n ute s l ate r, te l l i n g h i m to leave be cau se t he man wa s ca lli ng friend s and t hey wer e go ing t o k ill defend ant . D efenda nt conti nue d to wai

t for th e m

an at the c orner of

Clark an d Wi l son S treets, b

ut he never arri

ve d. Def endan t cal l ed Be rta, who told h

i m that her si

ster wa s n ot worth des troyi

ng h i s l i f e ove r. Defendan t t estifi ed that when the m

an di d not show up at Clark and W il son St reets, defend ant called I rma's c ell phone and t he man answ er ed a gain. He t old defend ant a differe nt locati on at whi ch to meet hi m. Def endan t arrived at that location approxi ma tely fi ve m in utes la ter, but t he m

an agai n di d not show. Defen

dant calle d Irma' s phone, an d the ma n an swered y

etNo. 1-07- 0782

-6-

agai n a nd tol d def endan t to meet hi

m at a stree t loca ted "b ef ore" C l ark an

d Wi l son S treets. Def endan t di d ashe

wastold, b

ut the m an di d not ap

pear. D ef endan t proceeded to a b ar, wh

ere he dr ank t equ ila and played po ol. Defend ant called I rma's p hone and t old t he man t he name o f the bar at whi ch h e was dri nki ng. Wh en the m an di d not arrive at the bar, def endan t lef t at approxim ately 3 a.m. an d went to t he apartme

nt where hi

s chi ldren li ved. Def endan t testi f i ed th at Irm

a ca l l ed h i m the n ex t morn i ng, a t approxi matel y 8 or 9 a.m
. The y event ually agr eed t o mee t late r t hat day t o t alk abo ut what had ha ppe ned. Befo re leaving the apartmen

t, defendan

t t ook a knif

e from the kitchen an

d hi d it i n hi s boot. Defe

ndan t stat ed t ha t he br o ug ht t he kn ife b ec au se t he man wh o wa s w it h I r ma o n S at ur da y had t hr ea t en ed him; defen dant testif ie d he di d not brin g the knife wi

th hi m i n order to kil

l Irm a. Whe n def endan t saw Irm a, a t ap prox i m ate l y 6:1 5 or 6 :20

p.m., s he as ke d if de f en da nt wasups et a

nd he sta ted "of
co ur se , yes . " T he y ar r ive d a t t he mo t el a nd de fen da nt hid t he kn ife in a d r aw er wh ile I r ma w as in t he ba t hr o o m. De fen da nt t o o k a sho we ran d t he n he an d I r ma h ad se x a nd t alk ed
. I r ma’ s c ell phone rang a

nd sh e answe red. Defen

dant could n

ot hear to whom sh

e was talki

ng. Wh en de f en da nt a sked wh ether th e p ers on on

the phone wa s th e other m an , Irm a j us t sm i l ed bu t did n ot
an swe r. De fen da nt t es t ified t ha t aft er ha ving int er co ur se t wo mo r e t imes , he as ke d w he t he rI rma was having a r elat ionship w ith t he o t her man and s he r eplied t hat she d id have s ex wit h him. She explai ned that she star ted the r elationship because she was jealous o f the mother of defendant’s chi ldren . Defen

dant then wen

t into the bathroom to use cocaine. W hen he returned to t he b ed, he f el t his body " paraly

zed compl

etely ." Irma aske d what was wrong, and def endan t repli ed thatNo. 1-07- 0782

-7-

he wa s fine. Aft er a few minut es, defend ant re t ur ned t o t he bat hro om t o ing est mor e co caine be f ore retu rni ng to the be d. B ef ore g oi ng to the ba thr oom , de f en da nt h ad move d the k

ni f e f rom the dra wer to un de r th e p i l l ow w i

thou t noti cef rom Irm a. D ef en da nt s tarte d s ha ki ng , an d he g ot
o ut o f be d t o go t o t he ba t hr o o m t o us e c o ca ine a t hir d t ime. He felt his b o dy h ad "lo st co nt r o l"
and was "very hot." He pi ctured I

rm a havi ng s ex wi th an other m an . De f en da nt te sti f i ed tha t he retu rned to the be d a nd took the k

ni f e f rom un de r th e p i l l ow
an d h e b eg an t o st ab I r ma. Sh e t o ld h im t o st o p h ur t ing he ran d t ha t she wo uld st ay w it h him f oreve r, bu t def endan t stabb ed h

er aga i n. Sh e f el l off the b ed an

d was bl eedi ng f rom h er neck. De f en da nt p ut h i s h an dsarou nd he r nec k to pu

t pre ss ure on th e i njury. De f

en da nt d i d n ot know wh ethe r he mean t to choke h

er, b ut he di d not rel

eas e hi s hold

on her neck u

nti l she b eca me l i m p. He kneel ed down nex

t t o Irma, cryi

ng, and s ai d, "forgi

ve m e." Defe ndan t t hen sm oked a ci garett e, showered, and cal le d the poli

ce and Be rta. Defendan

t t old Berta that Irma was dead
an d " wh at ha pp en ed ha d t o ha pp en . " B er t a b eg an t o cr y and t he ca ll wa s c ut o ff. I r ma’ s c ell pho ne t hen beg an t o r ing and w hen de fendant answ er ed, it w as Be rt a. Ber t a as ked if defenda nt
wasj oki ng, a nd d ef endan t repl i ed " no." Defend ant t est ifi

ed t hat when he saw a po lice car app ro aching w ith t he sire n on, he opened the door, sm

oked a cigarette and went downstai rs to meet the offi

cers. He told them

that he had killed his girlfriend, and t he po lice laughe d at him. After one of t he o ffi cer s che cke d t he
ro om and disco ver ed I rma, t he o t her officer t old defend ant , " Pu t your hands on yo ur back " and handc uffed him. D efenda nt was place d in a po lice car and t ake n t o t he po lice st at ion, wher e he ga v e a v i de otap ed

sta tem en t.No. 1-07- 0782

-8-

The t rial judg e fo und d efenda nt guilt y of first deg re e mur der , mer ged co unt II into co unt I , an d s en t en ce d h im t o 27 yea r s' imp r iso nme nt . De fen da nt filed t his t imely a pp ea l. Fir st , de fen da nt co nt en ds his t r ial c o un se l co mmit t ed ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce by fa iling t o file
a m ot ion to suppress def

endan t's statemen

ts where he was

questioned s

hortly after i ngesti ng a large am ount of cocaine and wh

ere defendant spoke Sp ani sh but was giv en his Mi randa warni ngs and q ues t ioned in English. T o s ucc eed on a n ineffect ive assist ance of c ou nsel claim, de fendant
mus t show that his couns el 's perf ormance was def ic ie nt and that defe

ndan t suff ered substantial prej udi ce a s a re sul

t of the def i ci en t perf orma nc e. Pe o ple v. Be ll, 373 Ill . App. 3d 811, 821 (2007). When

the defi ci ent perform

ance i nvol ves a f ai lure to fi

le a m ot ion to suppress, subs

tantial pr ejudice exist s if ther e is a r eas ona ble pr oba bili t y that t he mot ion wo uld have been g ra nt ed a nd that the outcome of the tri al

would ha ve be en di f f eren t had the evi den ce b een suppress ed. Pe o ple v. Orange , 168 Ill . 2d 138, 153 (1995). A f ai lure to show substantial prejudi ce, in itsel f, di sposes of the i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce c l ai m . People v. Al

banese , 104 Il

l . 2d 504 , 527 (1 984). Regardi ng def endan t's argum ent that he was he avi

ly under the i

nf lue nce of c ocain

e when the police questioned h

im , the evidence i

n support inc lude s def

endan t's trial testim ony tha t he had ingest ed $ 150 wo rt h of c oc aine, in thr ee t rips t o t he bat hro om, befo re killi ng I rma. Defend ant 's vi de otap ed sta tem en t ref ers onl y to a on e-ti me u se of coc ai ne , an d there wa s n o tes ti mony f rom the of f i cers tha t de f en da nt s howed an y si gn s of i m pai rm en t. In he r rul i ng , th e tri al j udg e di d n

ot fi nd def endan t's trial testim ony c redib le , stating: "I c an 't i mag i ne an y bod y be i ng ab l e to s tan

d on the i r f ee t i f the y took $1 50 worth

of
co caine. I mean, t hat who le, 'I t oo k co caine, and I was par alyzed a nd we nt and s at andNo. 1-07- 0782

-9-

t alk ed t o he rcle ar ly and dis t inc t ly, a nd t he n I we nt an d t o o k c o ca ine ag ain , an d I we nt in t he bac k and t alked t o he r a gain. I w ent and t oo k co caine a t hird t ime, t hen I went and killed her ,' it was just a cr oc k, just suc h a cr oc k. I a m tr ying to say it nice ly. It was suc h a li e. Just suc h an ab surdity." Giv en the trial

judge 's determ

in ation that defen

dant's testim

ony regardi

ng hi s drug use lacked
cre di bi l i ty , th ere i s n o rea son ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty tha t the tri al j udg e h ere wou l d have gran

ted a m oti on to suppress statemen

ts based on def

endan t's cocain e use. De f en da n t also a rgue s th at h i s tr i al cou n se l wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai l i n g to f i l e a moti on to suppress b ecause "the record shows that [defe ndan t] spoke Spanish , yet the arrestin g off ic er admi tt ed that [defendant] made i ncul pato ry statements to police af ter he was Mi

randi zed and questioned i

n Engl is h onl y." De fen

dant's contention is

without meri

t. At t rial, Off

ic er Martinez testi f i ed th at he

and def endan t spoke En

gli sh to each other i n a l l thei r conv ersa tions b ef ore defendan t enter ed the po li

ce stat ion. During thei

r ini tial conv ersations, when the officers fi rst arriv ed at the scene, Of

fi cer Martin

ez asked def

endan t whether he was the pe

rson who had cal

le d the police. Defen

dant repli ed aff irm ative ly , explai ni ng that he h

ad done so because

he h ad ki ll ed his g irlfr ien d a nd t ha t he rbo dy w as in r o o m 29
. Offic er Ma r t ine z a rr es t ed de fen da nt , r ea d h im his Mi randa rights, and placed hi

m i n the backseat of the po li

ce car. Dur in

g their next conversations, agai n i n Engl is h, def endan t stat ed that he had ki

ll ed Irma b ecause h

e was j eal ous, t hat he h

ad used a knife, an

d that he had f

lus hed the kn

if e down the toil et. During trial , the trial judge in terrupt ed defen dant's testim

ony, statin

g: "I have to say [defendant] is an swering the questions bef ore t hey 're in terp reted , soNo. 1-07- 0782

-10-

obvio usly he is und er st anding s ome E nglish. And it is clea r, beca use I ha ve had him [in] court, that h

e ca n un ders tand som e En gli sh ." Thus, the record belie s def endan t's contention that he was unab le to understand the Mi

randa
war nings given t o him in English. D efense co unse l committ ed no ineffect ive assist ance by fail ing t o file a mo t ion t o s upp re ss d efenda nt 's st at ement s base d o n an allege d inability to unde rst and Eng lish. Further, the record indi

cates that after defen

dant was taken to the polic e station, he was giv en his Mi randa right s in Spa nish, aft er which he mad e a vide ot ape d st at ement simi lar t o t he st at eme nt he ha d ma de ea r lier t o t he o ffice r s. De fen da nt 's v ide o t ap ed st at eme nt , co up led wit h his tes ti m ony at tri al an d the te sti mony of Irm a' s s i ster, w oul

d have re sul

ted i n d ef en da nt' s c onv i cti on even if t he ea rlier s t at ement s had been s upp re ssed . S ince t he o ut co me of t he t rial wo uld no t have been d iff er ent , d efense co unse l's failure t o file a mo t ion t o s upp re ss ca nnot co nst itu t e ineffect ive assi stance. De f en da n t ar gu es th at People v . Lopez , 229 Il l . 2d 322(2008 ), com

pels a d i f f eren t resul t. In Lopez , our supreme court addressed the so-called "question f irst, warn l

ater" technique som eti mes u til ized b y pol i ce of f i cers . Lopez , 229 Il

l . 2d at 35 7. Un

der the que sti on f

i rst, warn la ter t echn ique , poli ce off

ic ers question a de fen

dant and el

ic it an i ncri mi natin g statement wi

thout advi sin g hi m of h is Mi randa ri ghts
. Lopez , 2 29 I ll. 2d a t 357 . Aft er t he st at ement is made, t he offi cers then give def

endant hi s Mi

randa right s, a fte r w hich he is ag ain inter ro gat ed u nt il he repea ts the i ncri m i na tin g statem en t. Lopez , 229 Ill . 2d at 357. Our suprem e court held that where off ic ers delib erately

use the questi on fi

rst, warn later techni

que, statements taken af

terNo. 1-07- 0782

-11-

Mi randa warni ngs wi ll be ex cl uded unl ess "curati

ve m easures were taken, such

as a sub stantial b re ak i n ti me a n d c i rc um sta n ce s b etw een

th e state men ts, such th at th e def en da n t wou l d b e a b l e 'to distin guish the tw o co ntexts and appreciate t hat the interro gation has taken a new tur n.' " Lopez , 229 Ill . 2d at 361, quo ting Mi ssouri v. Se i bert , 542 U.S. 600, 622, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643, 661, 124 S. Ct. 2601 , 2616 ( 2004)( Ke nn edy , J., con curri ng)
. Lopez is not applicabl

e here b ecause thi s i s not a case where the of fi cers del ib erately used a qu est ion first , w ar n late r t echniqu e. Rat her , a s discu ssed abo ve, defend ant indicat ed t o t he offi cers at t he scene that he understo od E nglish and he was gi

ven h is Mi randa warnin gs in English prior to his arri

val at the polic e station. The Mi randa wa rn i n gswererepe ate d i

n Sp an i sh pri or to t he giving o f the video t ape d st at ement . T he o ffi cer s did no t act in a calcu late d wa y to unde rmine the Mi randa wa rn i n gsan d, t h us , de f en da n t' s p ost - Mi

randa sta tem en ts wer e n ot s ub j ec t to suppressi on. Accordin

gly , defense counsel

comm itted no in

eff ective assi stance by

fai li ng to file a motion to suppress. Defe ndan t's fi nal contention i s that hi s 27-year sentence is excess iv e and the tria

l judge im properly sentence d hi

m b ased on personal

feel in gs about the crim

e. Defen dant wai ved revi ew by fai li ng to file a postsentenci

ng m ot ion. See People v . Reed , 177 Ill . 2d 389, 390 (1997). Even on the me rits, def endan t's clai m f ai ls . Reviewi

ng courts give great deferenc e to sentences i m posed by the that are wi

thi n the statutory

ran ge f or the cr i me at i ssue. Peop l e v . K

olzow , 301 I ll. A pp . 3d 1, 9 ( 19 98 )
. I t is p r es ume d t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t co nsid er s o nly co mpe t en t ev ide nc e in
sen tenc i ng. Kozl ow , 30 1 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 8 . F ur th er more , the tr

i al cou rt nee d n ot ex pr es sl y sta te that it has cons ide

red mi tigatin g factors becaus e, absen

t evide nce to the contrary, it i s presum edNo. 1-07- 0782

-12-

to have con sidered

m i tig ati ng f actors b rough t forth i n a rgum en t. Peo ple v. Wright , 272 Ill . App. 3d 10 33 , 10 46 ( 19 95 )
. T he t r ial c o ur t is in t he be st po sit io n t o we igh t he fac t o r s r ele va nt in
sente nc i ng , an d a rev i ew i ng cou rt wi l l not ov ertu rn i ts determ i na ti on a bs en t an ab us e of di scre tion
. Wright , 272 Ill . App. 3d at 1045. At the sentenci

ng he arin g, the trial

judge fi rst stat ed she h

ad reviewed the presen

tence i nv esti gation rep ort. The j udge

then he ard ar gum en ts i n a ggrav ati on an d m i tig ati on. In aggravation, t he assi stant S tat e's Atto rney read a vi ctim i mpact stat emen

t from Irma's sister, Ms. Ber t a Ce rr ito s, in which s he st at ed t hat t he mur der had " shat t er ed" t he life of Ir ma's childre n and "compl etely devastated" Irma' s m

ot her. The ass is

tant St ate's Attorney argued that the m urder left I r ma' s c hild r en mo t he r les s, an d h e d es cr ibe d h o w d efe nd an t ha d lu r ed I r ma t o t he mo t el r o o m, armed h im sel f wi th a knife, h

ad sex wi th her m ulti ple tim es, and then

stabbed h

er and strangl

ed her to death. The assi stant Stat e's A tt orney argued that the m urder to ok "a long peri

od of tim e" and invo lved "muc h violence " and was so "bru t al and vicio us" t hat it nec essit at ed a "significant
amo un t o f t ime in t he de pa r t men t o f co rr ec t io ns. " I n mit iga t io n, de fen se co un se l ar gu ed t ha t I r ma di d n ot l i ve wi th h er c hi l dre n a nd tha t the f ather of he r ch i l dre n h ad f i l ed an em erg en cy orde r of prot ection agai

nst her; that defenda

nt did n ot "l ure" Irma to the hotel but that she wen t o f h er own accord; that defen

dant had taken cocai

ne, whi ch m ade hi m l ose a sense

of control; an

d that the reaso n he "wen

t o ff " is b ecause "he had i

magi ned her havi

ng sex wi th anot her man ." Defense counsel al so argued defen

dant did n ot try to run or hi

de, but instead call

ed the poli

ce and adm

itted t o t he cr ime. Finally

, d efense co unse l not ed t hat defend ant had no pr ior felony co nvictio ns and that his four chi ldren would m is s def endan t if he was s ent to jail

for a long period of ti

me .No. 1-07- 0782

-13-

The t rial judg e st at ed s he had co nsider ed t he fact or s in agg ra vat ion and mitigat ion. The trial judge then b rief ly sum ma rized the testi

mony , noting that def

endan t had sex wi

th Irma, then stabbed an

d choked her to death. The trial judge stated: "I t wa s a bso lut ely p r eme dit at ed
. I t wa s ho rr ible, ab so lut ely ho rr ible w ha t he did t o t his y oun g w om an, w h en h e h as an oth er l ad y at h om e wi th f our ki dsth at h e v i si ts f rom ti me to tim e. I' m not ex pres si ng a ny ki nd of moral j udgm en t on hi m or the v i cti m . I don' t care who any body s le eps wi

th. You do n't ha

ve the ri ght to kil l s omeb ody be cause they

sl eep wi th som eb ody else . Th at' s a l l h e d i d. H e m urdere d s om

eon e b ec au se th ey de ci de d to have sex wi

th someb ody other than hi m. A nd I'm sure the deceased f

igured i f h e had f our ch ildr en by a w o man an d c an go t he r e a nd sp en d t he nig ht wit h he r , he wa s p r o ba bly dipp ing t her e like he w as w ith her . I t 's just disgu st ing. I have e ight childre n who have no parents--with a m

ot her m is si ng f rom her f our kids an

d a fathe r missi ng be cause thi s m

an thi nks he could ki l l som eb ody be caus e the

y ha ve sex wi th som eb ody el se." The t rial judg e st at ed t hat defend ant did no t des er ve t he minim um sent ence , so she
se n ten ce d h i m to 27 yea rs ' i m pri son men t. De f en se cou ns el i nf orm ed the tri al j udg e that i

t ha d n ot of f ere d de f en da nt a righ t of al locution. The

trial judge then asked de fen

dant whether there was an ythi ng he wis hed to say be fo r e it "imp o se [ d] se nt en ce . " D ef en da nt st at ed t ha t he as ke d f o r gi ve ne ss fr o m I r ma' s fa mily, admit t ed t hat he had co mmi t t ed a n "er ro r, " and st at ed t hat he had disco ver ed G od . D efenda nt al so stated

that he had obtai

ne d "15 certif

i cates and thre e di

ploma s." The t rial judg e r esp ond ed t hat she ha d no t see n t he 15 cer t ifi cat es a nd t hre e diplo mas, a ndNo. 1-07- 0782

-14-

she told def en se c ouns el

that sh e woul d be wil l i ng to rev i ew those m

aterial s if they were presented to her. The trial judge stated: "I ha ve t o s ay tha t I've just hear d t he de fendant 's alloc ut ion and it ce rt ainly would no t have changed the se

nten ce that I i m posed . He ke epscal

l i ng f i rst deg ree m urder a n error. A f i rst deg ree m urder i s n ot an err or." The trial judge then reci ted for the record t he various di plom as and ce rtif ic ates that defen se counsel

apparently

had presen

ted to her, i

ncl udin g a di plom a for the succes sf

ul compl etion of a B ible

course, and certif

ic ates from B ible

academ ie s i ndicatin g successf ul compl etion of study courses. The trial judge stated: "Li ke I said, what he sai

d would not chan

ge the sentenc e that I im

posed in this case. He does ask forgi

ven ess [f rom] the fa

mi ly . He calls what he di

d an error. As I said not an
er r o r , it wa s t o me, a mu r de rt ha t he pla nne d t o co mmit fr o m ev er yt hing t ha t I he ar d in thi s ca se." The j udge stated t hat her sen tence of 27 y

ears' i mprisonm ent would stand. T his r ec o r d in dic at es t ha t t he t r ial ju dg e p r o pe r ly co nsid er ed all t he ev ide nc e in aggravation a

nd m itigation, that she corrected her earli er error and all

owed defen

dant to make a statement i

n al locution, an

d then sh e sentenc ed defe

ndan t withi n the statuto ry ran

ge. Al though the judge did e xpress disgust at t he f

act that defendan

t kil le d Irma b ecause h

e di d not li

ke her hav in g sex wi th someb ody else, "[t]he fact that a sentenci ng j udge added some

personal obse rva tions, wh i l e not to be

encourage d, doesnot am ount to an a

bus e of di scre tion " if the re cord shows he or sh

e con sidered

proper f actors. Kolzow , 301 I ll . App. 3d at 9. There was no abuseNo. 1-07- 0782

-15-

of di scretion h

ere. Def endan t conten ds that prior to trial , duri

ng a Rul e 402conf

eren ce (17 7 Il l . 2d R. 4 02), the trial judge noted the St ate had off

ered defe ndan t 20 years, an

d that "given these f

acts *** [s h e] certai

n l y wou l dn ' t h av e of f er ed h i m 20 ." De f en da n t con ten dsth at th es e c om men ts i n di ca te t he t rial judg e had pr ejudg ed t he ca se a nd impro per ly relied o n her ow n op inions ( ra t her t han t he evi dence i n aggrava tion and m

itigation) i

n sen tenci ng hi m. Def endan t's contention is wi

thout
mer it
. As d isc us se d a bo ve , a t ho r o ug h r ev iew o f t he r ec o r d in dic at es t ha t t he t r ial ju dg e p r o pe r ly
con si dere d th e ev i den ce

an d a rgum en ts i n ag gr av ati on an d m i ti ga ti on wh en se n ten ci n g d ef en da n t; we find no abus e o f discr et ion. For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court is af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. GA LL AG HER a nd N EVILL E, JJ.' s con

cur.