2016 IL App (1st) 160984

No. 1-16-0984 

Opinion filed September 26, 2017 

Second Division

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LUIS VIRAMONTES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of Cook County. 

No. 10 CR 5564 

The Honorable 

Timothy J. Joyce

Judge, presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Presiding Justice Neville and Justice Mason concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 After discovering that his wife was having an affair with a former coworker, Luis 

Viramontes brutally beat her, and she later died from her injuries. At trial, Luis admitted he 

caused the injuries that led to his wife’s death, but claimed he was seriously provoked by her 

infidelity and that she willingly engaged in aggression against him. A jury convicted Luis of first 

degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years in prison. 

¶ 2 Luis appealed his conviction, arguing the trial court (i) should have given a second 

degree murder instruction because the suggestive text messages and photographs equate to
1-16-0984 

-2- 

personal discovery of the adulterous act itself and warrant a provocation instruction; (ii) should 

have granted his request for instructions on involuntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, and 

domestic battery; (iii) should not have allowed the jury to view two autopsy photographs of his

wife’s head injuries, which he claimed were unduly prejudicial and inflammatory; and (iv) 

improperly limited his cross-examination of State witness Liliana Almazan, which might have

revealed bias or motive to lie. The appellate court rejected all of these arguments and affirmed 

the conviction and sentence. People v. Viramontes, 2014 IL App (1st) 130075. 

¶ 3 Through private counsel, Luis filed a post-conviction petition contending: (i) he was 

denied effective assistance of trial counsel because his trial attorney failed to consult with or call 

an expert witness to rebut the State’s medical evidence, (ii) his trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to make a proper offer of proof to admit impeachment evidence against Liliana Almazan, 

(iii) the trial court’s refusal to issue an involuntary manslaughter instruction violated his rights to 

due process and a jury trial, (iv) he was denied his right to a fair trial because the trial court 

admitted into evidence irrelevant and prejudicial text messages between him and his wife, (v) his 

appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to properly argue that the trial court’s refusal to give 

an involuntary manslaughter instruction violated his rights to due process, and (vi) his appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the improper text message testimony on appeal. 

¶ 4 The trial court summarily dismissed Luis’s petition finding that all issues raised were

frivolous and patently without merit or barred by res judicata. We agree and affirm.

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 At trial, Luis testified that on January 9, 2010, he and his wife, Sandra RinconViramontes, went out for dinner and drinks with family and friends to celebrate his birthday. 

Sandra’s mother watched their two children overnight. The party ended around 11 p.m. Luis 
1-16-0984 

-3- 

testified that on the drive home, he noticed Sandra received a text message, which he thought 

was strange. Sandra fell asleep in the car, and when they arrived home, Luis carried her inside 

and put her to bed. When he returned to the car for their belongings, he checked Sandra’s phone 

and saw a sexually explicit text message exchange between Sandra and “Denise.” 

¶ 7 Luis testified that, unknown to him at the time, Sandra was having an extramarital affair

with Andres (Andy) Ochoa, a former coworker. Sandra saved Andy’s phone number in her cell 

phone as “Denise.” On January 9, Sandra and Andy exchanged 18 text messages. Their 

conversation mentioned meeting up and a request from Andy for suggestive photographs. In 

reply, Sandra sent four or five naked pictures of herself. 

¶ 8 Luis testified that when he saw the messages and photographs, he “felt like [his] whole 

life was turned upside down.” He tried calling Denise’s number to discover who Sandra had been 

texting, but no one answered. Luis testified that when he saw the text from Denise stating 

“you’re making me hard,” he knew it was from a man and that Sandra was having an affair.

¶ 9 Luis testified he then went into the house to confront Sandra about the affair. He found 

her in the bathroom snorting cocaine, and they argued about the drugs. The argument continued 

into the living room, where Luis confronted Sandra about the text messages and naked photos. 

Sandra asked for her phone back. Luis tried again to call Denise’s number. Sandra told Luis that 

“Denise” was really Andy, she had been intimate with him, and they were in love. 

¶ 10 Luis testified he was “angry” and “devastated.” He hit Sandra in the face with an open 

hand. Sandra ran into the bedroom and locked the door. Luis continued to yell at Sandra, calling 

her vulgar names and reading the text messages aloud. Luis then spray painted the living room 

and hallway walls and their wedding pictures with explicit words related to the affair. He sat at 

the kitchen table, put his head down, and cried.
1-16-0984 

-4- 

¶ 11 Sandra came out of the bedroom. When she saw the spray-painted walls, she ran toward 

Luis screaming and swinging at him. She began to hit him in the chest, so he grabbed Sandra’s 

shoulders, “threw her against the door, and then tossed her over the table.” Luis told Sandra he 

was leaving her. She got up and ran at him again. Luis grabbed her by the shoulders and threw 

her against the refrigerator and then onto the kitchen floor, telling her “Get off me. Leave me. 

I’m leaving you. I’m not going to be with you no more.” He then walked toward the back door. 

¶ 12 Sandra got up from the floor, threw her wedding rings at Luis, and said she did not want 

to be married. Luis testified that Sandra then told him that she had an abortion and killed his 

baby. Luis said he thought he had facilitated the abortion because he drove her to a doctor’s 

appointment he thought was related to her cancer diagnosis. Luis testified he “lost it” and 

“couldn’t control [himself] after that.” Luis grabbed Sandra and threw her into the refrigerator, 

causing her to hit her head hard. He then threw her onto the floor, where she hit her head again. 

On the floor in the fetal position, Sandra tried to cover herself as Luis hit her in the face with his 

hands four or five times. 

¶ 13 Luis testified that although he hit and threw Sandra, he was not trying to kill her. He said 

he was close to potential weapons, including knives, but did not use any because, as he put it, “I 

wasn’t trying to kill her.” Luis went outside to calm down and texted “Denise,” who did not 

respond. Around 2:30 a.m., he called his brother, Fernando, and asked him to come over. 

¶ 14 When Luis went back in the house, Sandra was in bed. He went over to her and asked if 

she was alright. She responded, “Babe, I’m sorry,” to which he replied he was sorry too. Luis 

testified Sandra told him to lie next to her and he did. He claimed she hugged him and told him 

she loved him. Luis testified he tried to comfort her and then she went to sleep. 
1-16-0984 

-5- 

¶ 15 Luis’s brother, Fernando, testified he arrived at the house shortly after 3 a.m. He looked 

in the bedroom and saw Sandra. He said she did not look hurt, and he thought she was sleeping 

off her intoxication. He did not notice her breathing unusually and did not believe she needed 

medical attention. When he asked Luis what happened, Luis seemed confused and repeated the 

same phrase over and over, “I trusted her, I trusted her.” Luis told Fernando he had hit Sandra 

with his hands. Fernando testified he suggested Luis lay down with Sandra and comfort her. 

Fernando slept in a separate bedroom. 

¶ 16 Luis woke Fernando around 7:30 a.m. and told him that Sandra was breathing differently. 

Fernando ran to the bedroom. Sandra’s breathing was heavy; she mumbled and moaned. He

noticed redness on her face, shoulders, and chest. And, he saw blood on the mirror and bed sheet. 

Fernando again asked Luis what happened. Luis told him to call an ambulance, which Fernando 

did. According to Fernando, Luis was “very nervous, shocked, [and] confused” and in a state he 

had never seen his brother. Luis left the house at his instruction, but called “countless times” 

throughout the day to check on Sandra. 

¶ 17 Sandra was taken to the hospital by ambulance. In the emergency room, she was unable 

to communicate. Photographs were taken of her injuries and extensive bruising. She had no 

fractures or injuries to her internal organs, other than her brain. Toxicology reports were positive 

for cocaine. Sandra was put on life support. She remained in a coma until her family had her 

ventilator removed when they were informed she would not recover. Sandra died on January 31, 

2010. Luis turned himself in to the police on January 13. 

¶ 18 When asked by his attorney on direct examination if he and Sandra ever exchanged “sexy 

pictures” via text message Luis said no. On cross-examination, the State asked Luis about texts 

of a sexual nature that he exchanged with his wife and specifically asked about text messages 
1-16-0984 

-6- 

sent between January 5 and 9, 2010. Defense counsel’s objections based on marital privilege 

were overruled. Luis responded that he could not recall sending and receiving most of the 

messages. Luis admitted sending Sandra text messages on the night he beat her asking, “Do you 

have a problem with me?”

¶ 19 On re-direct, Luis’s attorney asked him about additional text messages Luis sent to 

Sandra in the days before the beating, telling her that he loved her. The parties then stipulated 

that all of the text messages referred to during direct and cross-examination were exchanges

between Luis and Sandra. 

¶ 20 Before trial, the State argued a motion in limine, asking the court to allow testimony from 

two witnesses who said they saw Luis hit Sandra on other occasions and saw her with black eyes. 

The motion was denied with regard to the testimony about black eyes but was granted to allow 

the witnesses to testify about seeing Luis hit Sandra for the limited purposes of showing intent. 

At trial, the State presented only one of the witnesses, Liliana Almazan. Liliana had a child with 

Sandra’s brother. She said she knew Sandra for 11 years and considered her a “sister.” A year 

before Luis and Sandra married, Almazan attended a party at their home and was sitting in front 

of the house with Sandra when Luis walked down the stairs and “slapped her upside the head.” 

She testified that Luis did not say anything to Sandra but he looked upset. 

¶ 21 Before Almazan testified, defense counsel sought to introduce photographs during crossexamination showing injuries Luis’s niece, Crystal Viramontes, sustained during a fight with

Almazan in June 2010. The State acknowledged Almazan had a misdemeanor battery conviction 

related to the fight but objected to it being raised on cross-examination. Defense counsel said he 

planned to raise only the fight not the conviction during cross-examination. Crystal was on the 

State’s witness list but the State told the trial court they would not be calling her. When asked 
1-16-0984 

-7- 

about the relevance of the fight, defense counsel said, “It goes to show her motives to lie. The 

fact that she’s engaging in the battery of a member of the defendant’s family. You have to 

understand the context of this. Liliana has a child with the brother of the alleged victim in this 

matter and both sides have been very hostile toward one another. This will go right to her motive 

and bias to lie.” The court prohibited the defense from cross-examining Liliana about the fight 

but allowed defense counsel to make it part of the record. Defense counsel submitted four photos 

of Crystal Viramontes as she appeared after the fight with Almazan for the record.

¶ 22 The State presented two expert witnesses. Dr. David McElmeel, the hospital trauma and 

surgical critical care attending physician, testified that when Sandra was admitted, he saw

multiple bruises on Sandra’s body, decreased consciousness, and severe edema or swelling of the 

brain. He found bilateral subdural hematomas (an accumulation of blood on the brain’s surface) 

from blunt head trauma; bruising around her forehead, eyes, nose, arms, shoulders, chest area, 

hands, and hip; and lacerations on the bridge of her nose, her forehead, and right ankle. Dr. 

McElmeel explained Sandra suffered significant trauma and that severe force had to be applied 

to cause her injuries. Regarding the toxicology screen testing positive for cocaine, McElmeel 

testified cocaine did not contribute to or cause Sandra’s death. 

¶ 23 During cross-examination by defense counsel, Dr. McElmeel acknowledged that 

Sandra’s urine toxicology screen was positive for a high level of cocaine. She had high blood 

pressure when she arrived at the hospital, and he agreed that the high blood pressure could be 

related to cocaine toxicity or could also be related to her head injury. Dr. McElmeel said Sandra 

had no trauma to her neck; no internal injuries to her chest, abdomen, or back; and no facial or 

skull fractures. She had lacerations on her nose and forehead, but nowhere else on her head. 
1-16-0984 

-8- 

¶ 24 Dr. Michael Humilier performed Sandra’s autopsy. He testified that Sandra was 30 years 

old and weighed 91 pounds (the parties stipulated she weighed 104 pounds when she entered the 

hospital). He noted 27 external evidences of injury and extensive bruising covering almost every 

body surface. He found a subdural hemorrhage, a collection of blood under the skull between the 

layers of tissue that surround the brain, and cerebral edema, swelling of the brain. Dr. Humilier 

testified that the force had to be significant to inflict the devastating injuries, something 

appreciably more severe than banging her head against the wall. In Humilier’s opinion, the cause 

of death was bronchopneumonia due to blunt force trauma from the assault. He ruled the death a 

homicide. He also testified that a drug overdose did not contribute to or cause Sandra’s death.

¶ 25 During cross-examination by defense counsel, Dr. Humilier agreed that cocaine can 

cause cerebral edema (which he found in Sandra’s head), subarachnoid hemorrhage (which he 

did not find), as well as respiratory problems, elevated blood pressure, and convulsions. He 

confirmed that (i) hospital records showed Sandra had cocaine in her system when she was 

admitted and (ii) he could not determine whether the bruising on Sandra’s body, aside from the 

injuries to her head, happened during the fight with Luis or at the hospital. Dr. Humilier 

acknowledged that he did not find any fractured bones or any injuries to Sandra’s internal 

organs. 

¶ 26 At the jury instruction conference, the defense tendered 18 jury instructions, including a 

lesser-included instruction for second degree murder based on provocation. The defense argued 

sufficient evidence existed for provocation based on adultery and mutual combat. The State 

responded that the case did not fit into any of the four categories meriting a second degree 

instruction. The court agreed. The defense also sought instructions on involuntary manslaughter, 

domestic battery, and aggravated battery. The court denied these as well.
1-16-0984 

-9- 

¶ 27 The jury convicted Luis of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Luis to 25 years 

in prison. The posttrial motion for a new trial was denied. Luis appealed, arguing the trial court 

(i) should have given a second degree murder instruction as the suggestive text messages and 

photographs equate to personal discovery of the adulterous act itself and warrant a provocation 

instruction; (ii) should have granted his request for instructions on involuntary manslaughter, 

aggravated battery, and domestic battery; (iii) should not have allowed the jury to view two 

autopsy photographs of his wife’s head injuries, which he claimed were unduly prejudicial and 

inflammatory; and (iv) improperly limited his cross-examination of State witness Liliana 

Almazan, which might have revealed bias or motive to lie. The appellate court affirmed the 

conviction and sentence. People v. Viramontes, 2014 IL App (1st) 130075. 

¶ 28 In his postconviction petition, which was filed on December 21, 2015, through private 

counsel, Luis alleged (i) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because his trial 

attorney failed to consult with or call an expert witness to rebut the State’s medical evidence, (ii) 

his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make a proper offer of proof that would have 

persuaded the trial court to allow Crystal Viramontes to testify and impeach Almazan’s 

testimony, (iii) the trial court’s refusal to issue an involuntary manslaughter instruction violated 

his rights to due process and a jury trial, (iv) he was denied his right to a fair trial because the 

trial court admitted into evidence irrelevant and prejudicial text messages between him and his 

wife, (v) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the trial court erred by 

admitting Luis’s text message testimony, and (iv) his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing 

to properly argue that the trial court’s refusal to give an involuntary manslaughter instruction 

violated his rights to due process. 
1-16-0984 

-10- 

¶ 29 Luis attached two affidavits to his postconviction petition. First, Dr. Larry Blum, a board 

certified forensic pathologist, averred that after reviewing the trial testimony, Sandra’s medical 

records, the postmortem report, and autopsy photographs, he concluded that Dr. Humilier’s 

testimony that it would take a “relatively significant force” to inflict the injuries seen in Sandra’s 

brain was “not necessarily true.” He asserted that cerebral edema, or brain swelling, can be 

associated with even mild brain injury and that the amount of cerebral edema found in a patient 

at the time of death is not necessarily proportional to the blunt force used to inflict the initial 

injury. He also stated that cocaine can contribute to cerebral edema. 

¶ 30 Dr. Blum opined that the bruising to Sandra’s face and body did not contribute in any 

significant way to her death and that it is difficult to assess the amount of force used because 

bruising varies significantly between individuals based on a number of factors. Dr. Blum noted 

that Sandra had Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that complications from lymphoma or treatment for 

lymphoma can increase bleeding and bruising. He stated that the volume of blood in Sandra’s 

hematoma, as described by Dr. Humilier, was relatively small and would not necessarily be 

lethal. Also, the existence of a subdural hematoma in the brain is not necessarily indicative of an 

injury from a “significant force.”

¶ 31 Dr. Blum stated that although Dr. Humilier and Dr. McElmeel used the term “significant 

force,” the evidence did not show that Sandra sustained scalp lacerations, skull fractures, or other 

injuries typically seen with blunt force trauma. Moreover, Sandra was responsive immediately 

after the beating and did not have fractures, which “strongly suggests that her initial injury, 

although clinically significant, could have been caused by something less than ‘significant’ blunt 

force.” Dr. Blum concluded that her injuries were not severe enough to infer that Luis intended 

to either kill her or cause her death. 
1-16-0984 

-11- 

¶ 32 Luis also attached the affidavit of Crystal Viramontes, his niece. Crystal averred that she 

was close to Sandra and never saw Luis act violently toward her. She said she knew Liliana 

Almazan through Sandra and that after Luis was charged with Sandra’s murder, Almazan 

attacked her twice and she believed Almazan was prosecuted and spent time in jail for both 

attacks. During the attacks, Almazan told her she was “going to make [Luis] and me pay dearly 

for what Luis did to Sandra.” Crystal never spoke to Luis’s attorney but before trial, she told 

Luis about the attacks and thought he would inform his attorney about them. During trial she was 

told she might be called to testify but she was not. 

¶ 33 On March 3, 2016, the trial court issued a written order finding all issues raised by Luis’s 

petition to be “frivolous and patently without merit or barred by res judicata” and summarily 

dismissed the petition. As to Luis’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to 

call an expert to refute the State’s experts, the trial court found it waived for not be raised on 

direct appeal and meritless because “Dr. Blum’s testimony *** amounts to nothing more than 

second-guessing counsel’s performance, which Strickland strongly cautions the court to avoid.” 

“Rather than call an expert, counsel made a strategic decision to engage in adversarial testing of 

the State’s expert testimony by extensively cross-examining the witnesses.” After noting the 

information elicited on cross-examination—including information about the effects cocaine may 

have had on Sandra, alternative explanations for her bruising, and the absence of any fractures—

the trial court concluded “counsel’s decision to challenge the medical evidence through crossexamination and closing argument fell within the wide range of reasonable professional 

conduct.” The court further stated, even if “an expert witness would have inherently made the 

defense’s case stronger, the decision not to call an expert is not per se ineffective assistance 

because the State could always call additional experts to offer contrasting opinions.” 
1-16-0984 

-12- 

¶ 34 Luis claimed he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to call an expert witness because 

it not only prevented his possible acquittal but deprived him of an involuntary manslaughter 

instruction. The court rejected this argument, finding that the decision whether to give an 

involuntary manslaughter instruction was based on factors other than the medical testimony 

regarding Sandra’s injuries, including the physical disparity between Luis and his wife, so the 

introduction of that testimony would not have necessarily resulted in the requested jury 

instruction. Further, Luis failed to show that had the jury instruction been given, the jury would 

have found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter instead. And he cannot demonstrate an 

arguable likelihood that the jury would have felt obligated to disregard the State’s medical 

experts and other evidence and would have found him not guilty.

¶ 35 As to Luis’s claim that he received ineffective assistance because his trial counsel did not 

make a proper offer of proof, the trial court also found this argument waived, because it was not 

raised on direct appeal, and meritless, because it amounted to “an erroneous attempt to secondguess counsel’s performance through the distorting lens of hindsight.” The court stated that the 

offer of proof was a matter of “trial strategy” and even if counsel’s strategic decision 

demonstrated deficient performance, “petitioner fails to establish that the alternative offer of 

proof advanced in the petition would have had any greater likelihood of success or that 

introduction of the desired impeachment testimony would have resulted in an entirely different 

outcome at trial.”

¶ 36 Regarding the alleged trial court errors, the court found Luis’s claim of error for failing to 

issue a jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter was barred by res judicata as it had been

raised and affirmed on direct appeal. 
1-16-0984 

-13- 

¶ 37 The trial court found Luis’s testimony on cross-examination about his text messages with 

Sandra properly admitted because defense counsel opened the door by asking Luis whether he 

had exchanged text messages of a sexual nature with Sandra and, as a matter that affects witness 

credibility, it was a proper subject of cross-examination. The trial court also found that Luis did 

not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the testimony; he failed to show the testimony was a 

material factor in his conviction in light of the trial evidence.

¶ 38 Lastly, as to Luis’s argument that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to 

sufficiently raise the trial court’s refusal to submit a manslaughter instruction, Luis contended

that if his attorney had raised this argument on federal rather than state law grounds, the 

appellate court would have applied a de novo rather than an abuse of discretion standard of 

review. But the trial court found no cases supporting his position. Luis also failed to demonstrate 

deficient performance as his appellate attorney made a strategic decision about which arguments 

to press. And Luis failed to prove he was prejudiced because, based on the evidence, he cannot

show that if the appellate court had applied a de novo standard of review, there would have been 

a different outcome. The trial court also rejected, on the basis that the underlying claim was 

meritless, Luis’s claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the text 

message testimony. 

¶ 39 ANALYSIS

¶ 40 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014)) provides 

a process for a convicted defendant to assert a substantial denial of his or her constitutional rights 

in the proceedings that led to the conviction. People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115, 124 (2007). A 

proceeding under the Act does not constitute a continuation of the criminal case or substitute for 

direct appeal. Rather, it serves as a collateral proceeding that is limited to claims that were not, 
1-16-0984 

-14- 

but could have been, litigated earlier. People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490, 499 (2010). 

“Consequently, any issues that were decided on direct appeal are res judicata, and any issues that 

could have been presented on direct appeal, but were not, are forfeited.” People v. Reyes, 369 Ill. 

App. 3d 1, 12 (2006). A defendant bears the burden of showing that he qualifies for relief under 

the Act by demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(1) (West 

2014). 

¶ 41 A postconviction proceeding has three distinct stages. People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89, 

99 (2002). At the first stage, the trial court must determine whether the defendant’s petition is 

“frivolous” or “patently without merit.” 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2014). A petition is 

considered “frivolous” or “patently without merit” when it has “no arguable basis either in law or 

in fact.” People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 16 (2009). A petition will have “no arguable basis either 

in law or in fact” when it “is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful factual 

allegation.” Id. Where the record contradicts a defendant’s legal theory, the theory is meritless. 

Id. “Fanciful factual allegations include those which are fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 17. The 

petition will be dismissed only if it is frivolous or patently without merit. 725 ILCS 5/122-

2.1(a)(2) (West 2014).

¶ 42 The trial court should not dismiss a petition at the first stage if sufficient facts are alleged 

“to state the gist of a constitutional claim.” People v. Allen, 2015 IL 113135, ¶ 24. All well-pled 

facts in the petition and supporting affidavits are taken as true. People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill.

2d 444, 455 (2002). We review a first-stage dismissal de novo. Allen, 2015 IL 113135, ¶ 19. 

¶ 43 Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel 

¶ 44 Luis contends his trial counsel should have (i) investigated and presented an expert 

witness on the issue of the force necessary to cause Sandra’s injuries and the effects of cocaine 
1-16-0984 

-15- 

on her system; and (ii) made a sufficient offer of proof to admit impeachment evidence against 

Liliana Almazan.

¶ 45 In determining whether a defendant was denied his or her right to effective assistance of 

counsel, we apply the two-prong test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); People 

v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125, 135 (2007) (citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (1984) (adopting 

Strickland)). Under Strickland, a defendant must prove (1) his or her attorney’s actions 

constituted errors so serious as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) 

absent those errors, there was a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been

otherwise. People v. Ward, 371 Ill. App. 3d 382, 434 (2007) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-

94). To prevail, the defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 

at 135. “That is, if an ineffective-assistance claim can be disposed of because the defendant 

suffered no prejudice, we need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” 

People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). 

¶ 46 Combining the standard for a first-stage summary dismissal with the standard for 

ineffective assistance of counsel, our supreme court has held that a postconviction petition 

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel may not be summarily dismissed, if: “(i) it is arguable 

that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (ii) it is 

arguable that defendant was prejudiced.” Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d at 497 (citing People v. Golden, 

229 Ill. 2d 277, 283 (2008)). 

¶ 47 Failure to Call an Expert Witness

¶ 48 Luis contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call an expert 

witness to testify about the amount of force necessary to cause Sandra’s injuries. Luis asserts that 

the degree of force necessary to cause Sandra’s injuries was determinative of whether he had the 
1-16-0984 

-16- 

requisite knowledge or intent for a first-degree murder conviction. The State presented two 

medical experts, Dr. Humilier and Dr. McElmeel, who testified that Sandra’s injuries were the 

result of “relatively significant force” and a “severe amount of force,” and so Luis must have 

known his action was likely to result in death or serious bodily injury. Luis claims, however, he 

only hit Sandra four or five times with his open hand and pushed her into a refrigerator and a 

table and did nothing showing he knew she would likely suffer that degree of harm. He further 

asserts that Sandra’s injuries were exacerbated by heavy cocaine use and that his attorney should 

have called an expert, like Dr. Blum, to testify as to the scientific validity of the State’s 

arguments or contradict the State’s experts. He also contends the failure to call an expert to rebut 

the medical testimony precluded his requested involuntary manslaughter instruction.

¶ 49 For support, Luis relies on People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, and People v. Tate, 

2012 IL 112214. In Tate, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the summary dismissal of a 

postconviction petition, finding it was arguable that the defendant was prejudiced by his 

attorney’s failure to investigate or call four witnesses, two of whom could have provided the 

defendant with an alibi defense. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶¶ 24-25. One witness would have 

testified (i) he was five feet from the victim at the time of the shooting, (ii) he saw the shooting, 

(iii) he had known defendant for years, and (iv) he was “sure” that the defendant was not the 

shooter. Id. ¶ 5. No physical evidence linked the defendant to the crime and the defendant did not 

make a confession. Id. ¶ 24. Hence, the witness’ testimony would have provided a first-person 

account of the incident that directly contradicted the State’s eyewitness testimony. Id.

¶ 50 Luis notes that in Tate, the supreme court rejected the State’s argument that trial counsel 

had strategic reasons for not calling certain witnesses because their testimony would have hurt 

defendant rather than helped him. The Supreme Court stated that the State’s “argument is more 
1-16-0984 

-17- 

appropriate to the second stage of postconviction proceedings, where both parties are represented 

by counsel, and where the petitioner’s burden is to make a substantial showing of a constitutional 

violation. The State’s strategy argument is inappropriate for the first stage, where the test is 

whether it is arguable that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness and whether it is arguable the defendant was prejudiced.” Tate, 2012 IL 112214, 

¶ 22. 

¶ 51 Luis asserts that as in Tate, as a first-stage proceeding, we should reject the State’s 

argument that his attorney had strategic reasons not to present an expert witness. But his reliance 

on Tate is misplaced. While Tate did hold that the strategy argument is not appropriate for the 

first stage, unlike in Tate, Dr. Blum’s affidavit does not meet the “arguable” Strickland standard. 

In Tate, as the supreme court noted, the affidavits of the witnesses who were not called at trial 

averred that they were present when the shooting happened, with one witness stating he was five 

feet from the victim, knew the defendant, and was “sure” he was not the shooter. Conversely, 

neither Dr. Blum nor any other expert witness could have unequivocally testified that Luis did 

not commit the crime. 

¶ 52 Moreover, unlike in Tate, Luis’s attorney cross-examined the State’s expert witnesses on 

most of the issues Dr. Blum discusses. On cross-examination, the State’s experts acknowledged 

that Sandra did not have broken bones; that she tested positive for cocaine, which can cause 

cerebral edema; and that her bruising may have been caused by her cancer diagnosis. And during

closing argument, defense counsel relied on the testimony he elicited during his crossexamination of the State’s experts to argue, in part, that Sandra had not been severely beaten but 

had signs of cocaine toxicity, which caused her death. Thus, the defense counsel did present an 

alternate theory to the jury, namely, that Sandra was not severely beaten and that cocaine 
1-16-0984 

-18- 

significantly contributed to her death. The jury opted not to accept that theory and Luis, with the 

benefit of hindsight, wants to argue that the jury might have decided otherwise if his attorney had 

presented and expert witness. But, as the trial court noted, “Dr. Blum’s testimony *** amounts to 

nothing more than second-guessing counsel’s performance, which Strickland strongly cautions 

the court to avoid.” 

¶ 53 In addition to failing to establish that his attorney’s performance was deficient, Luis fails 

to show prejudice in light of the overwhelming evidence against him, including his own 

admissions. Luis argues that the lack of expert testimony, which could have shown that 

something other than his beating Sandra caused her death, prevented him from receiving an 

involuntary manslaughter instruction and an acquittal. This claim is based on speculation and 

cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Gosier, 165 Ill. 2d 16, 24 

(1995). First, as the trial court noted, its decision regarding the involuntary manslaughter 

instruction was “not rooted solely in the State’s medical testimony regarding the nature of the 

victim’s injuries but was also based on other factors such as the disparity between petitioner and 

victim.” Thus, we cannot say it is arguable that introduction of an expert witness would have 

changed the trial court’s mind about giving the involuntary manslaughter instruction. 

¶ 54 In addition, the evidence of Luis’s guilt, including his own testimony was overwhelming 

and thus, he cannot establish that it is arguable the outcome of the trial would have been different 

if his attorney had presented expert medical testimony. Luis testified as to the severity of the 

beating, stating that he threw Sandra against a door, over the table, and into the refrigerator, 

causing her to hit her head against the refrigerator, “really hard.” He then threw her onto the 

floor, where she hit her head again. On the floor in the fetal position, Sandra tried to cover 

herself as Luis hit her in the face with his hands four or five times. 
1-16-0984 

-19- 

¶ 55 With respect to his counsel’s alleged failure to investigate whether to present an expert 

witness, Luis asserts his attorney had an obligation to investigate his case and explore all readily 

available sources of evidence that could have benefited him. He argues that his attorney could 

not be deemed to have made the decision on an expert witness based on valid trial strategy when 

his attorney did not even investigate the possibility or determine the substance of a potential 

expert witness. 

¶ 56 It is well settled that trial counsel has a professional duty to conduct reasonable 

investigations and independently investigate any possible defenses. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. 

Further, “[l]ack of investigation is to be judged against a standard of reasonableness given all of 

the circumstances, ‘applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.’ ” People v. 

Kokoraleis, 159 Ill. 2d 325, 330 (1994) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691). Defense counsel’s 

cross-examination of the expert witnesses regarding the types of injuries Sandra suffered and the 

possible effects of cocaine in exacerbating those injuries show that defense counsel engaged in 

reasonable investigation of Luis’s case and possible defenses. His decision to elicit the testimony 

on cross-examination of the State’s experts did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. 

¶ 57 Offer of Proof

¶ 58 Luis contends the trial court should not have summarily dismissed his claim that his trial 

counsel was ineffective by failing to make a sufficient offer of proof to admit impeachment 

evidence against Liliana Almazan, who testified for the State that she saw Luis hit Sandra on the 

head. Luis argues that his attorney failed to adequately make a proffer to allow evidence showing 

that Almazan committed a battery against his niece, Crystal Viramontes, several months after 

Sandra died, which would have shown that Almazan was biased against him. Luis submitted 

Crystal’s affidavit providing extensive details of the fight and averring that Alamazan told 
1-16-0984 

-20- 

Crystal that she would “make Luis and me pay dearly for what Luis did to Sandra” and that she 

was “going to make sure that Luis went back to jail.”

¶ 59 A postconviction proceeding is not a substitute for a direct appeal, but instead, is a 

collateral attack on the conviction that allows only limited review of constitutional claims that 

could not be raised on direct appeal. People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115, 124 (2007). Therefore, 

claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are forfeited, and claims that 

were addressed on direct appeal are barred by res judicata. Id. at 124-25; 725 ILCS 5/122-3 

(West 2014); see also People v. Makiel, 358 Ill. App. 3d 102, 105 (2005) (any issues decided on 

direct appeal are barred by res judicata; any issues that could have been raised on direct appeal 

are defaulted). This rule is relaxed where “the facts relating to the claim do not appear on the 

face of the original appellate record.” Makiel, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 105. Forfeiture is not 

implicated, however, when a claimant relies on evidence outside the original appellate record. 

People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 375-76 (2000). 

¶ 60 On direct appeal, Luis alleged the trial court improperly precluded him from crossexamining Almazan about the misdemeanor battery conviction (People v. Viramontes, 2013 IL 

App (1st) 130075, ¶¶ 87-92). At that time, he also could have raised the argument that his trial 

counsel was ineffective for not offering a sufficient proffer. Thus, his argument that his attorney 

was ineffective for failing to make a sufficient proffer was forfeited.

¶ 61 Even if the alleged failure to proffer was not forfeited, Luis cannot establish it constitutes 

an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because Luis’s attorney made a sufficient 

offer of proof. First, although Luis’s brief suggests Crystal would have testified and impeached 

Liliana Almazan’s testimony, the record shows defense counsel did not seek to call Crystal as a 

witness but wanted to use Almazan’s battery conviction on cross-examination to impeach her for 
1-16-0984 

-21- 

bias. Defense counsel informed the court of the nature of the battery Almazan committed against 

Crystal and the reason why he wanted to introduce it on cross-examination. When the trial court 

questioned the relevance of the fight, trial counsel said that Almazan had a child with the 

victim’s brother, that “both families have been very hostile to one another,” and that the evidence 

“will go right to her motive and bias to lie.” He also informed the trial court that the fight 

occurred in June 2010, within a few months of Sandra’s death. When the trial court precluded the 

questioning, defense counsel asked that photos depicting Crystal after the fight be made part of 

the record and impounded for the appellate court. Although Crystal’s affidavit perhaps provides

a more vivid description of both the fight and Almazan’s comments to Crystal, it does not add 

more information than was offered in the proffer as to the testimony’s purpose—to show that

Almazan as biased against Luis. Although the trial court denied defense counsel’s request, as 

noted, we will not second guess counsel’s performance through the distorting lens of hindsight. 

See People v. Rodriguez, 364 Ill. App. 3d 304, 312 (2006) (“For purposes of Strickland’s first 

prong, it is not enough that another lawyer, with the benefit of hindsight, would have acted 

differently than trial counsel.”). 

¶ 62 Involuntary Manslaughter Jury Instruction 

¶ 63 Luis next contends summary dismissal of his petition was not warranted because the trial 

court denied him the right to a fair trial by refusing to grant his request for a jury instruction on 

involuntary manslaughter. Luis asserts the facts at trial showed he did not intend to kill Sandra 

and supported giving an involuntary manslaughter instruction. Specifically, he notes the

evidence showed that the fight was over Sandra’s sexual infidelity, Sandra did not suffer any 

broken bones, Sandra hit him back, Luis did not use weapons that were available to him, Sandra 

was not unresponsive until hours after the fight, and Luis asked his brother to call 911. Relying 
1-16-0984 

-22- 

on Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980), Luis argues that the trial court’s refusal to consider a 

lesser included offense where the evidence supported it is a denial of due process. 

¶ 64 The State counters that, because the appellate court addressed this specific claim in Luis’s 

direct appeal, the claim was waived and barred by res judicata. The State acknowledges that 

Luis did not raise a due process argument on direct appeal and instead argued that the evidence 

supported an involuntary manslaughter instruction because the jury could have rationally found 

he acted recklessly and not with the intent to kill Sandra. The State argues, however, that Luis 

cannot obtain relief under the Act by rephrasing previously addressed issues in constitutional 

terms in a postconviction petition. 

¶ 65 We agree with the State. Although the purpose of the post-conviction proceeding is to 

permit inquiry into the constitutional issues involved in the “original” proceeding, a petitioner 

cannot obtain relief under the Act simply by “ ‘rephrasing previously addressed issues in 

constitutional terms’ ” in his or her petition. People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 277-78 (1992)

(quoting People v. Gaines, 105 Ill. 2d 79, 90 (1984)). Such claims will be properly defeated by 

operation of waiver and res judicata. Id. at 278. The question of whether the trial court erred in 

refusing to give an involuntary manslaughter instruction was raised on direct appeal, albeit not 

phrased in constitutional terms. So, Luis previously raised this issue, and it is barred by res 

judicata. The trial court properly dismissed it. See People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 447 (2005) 

(trial court may properly dismiss first-stage petition based on res judicata).

¶ 66 Text Messages

¶ 67 According to Luis, the trial court improperly allowed into evidence irrelevant text 

messages of a sexual nature exchanged between he and Sandra that were prejudicial and denied 

him the right to a fair trial. Luis notes that in dismissing his petition, the trial court found that 
1-16-0984 

-23- 

Luis opened the door for questions about the text messages—on direct examination, he denied 

exchanging messages of a sexual nature with Sandra. In addition, the court found that the 

messages went to the issue of Luis’s credibility. Luis contends, however, the questions on direct 

examination about sexually explicit texts between Sandra and Andy were foundational; they 

went to the issue of how he learned about her affair. He asserts that, conversely, the text 

messages he exchanged with Sandra had no probative value, had no bearing on his guilt or 

innocence, and did not prove or disprove a disputed fact or relate to what happened on the night 

of the altercation. Luis argues the messages served only to prejudice him in minds of jurors, who 

might find these messages inappropriate or evidence that he was a sexual deviant. 

¶ 68 Generally, cross-examination is limited in scope to the subject matter of direct 

examination of the witness and to matters affecting the credibility of the witness. This limitation 

is construed liberally, however, to allow inquiry into whatever subject tends to explain, discredit, 

or destroy the witness’s direct testimony. People v. Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d 467, 498 (1998). The 

latitude to be given on cross-examination falls within the trial court’s discretion. People v. Hall, 

195 Ill. 2d 1, 23 (2000). A reviewing court will not interfere unless the trial court plainly abused 

its discretion resulting in manifest prejudice to the defendant. Id.

¶ 69 Luis asserts that the questions on direct examination were foundational to establish that 

the text messages came from Sandra’s boyfriend and did not open the door to cross-examination. 

But Luis had already testified the messages were sent by “Denise,” which turned out to be a fake 

name but were obviously not an exchange between Luis and Sandra. When defense counsel 

asked Luis if he and Sandra ever sent “sexy pictures” to each other, he said no. This opened the 

door to the line of questioning by the State on cross-examination and was relevant to Luis’s 

truthfulness. As the trial court noted in its dismissal order, “[t]he State’s cross-examination 
1-16-0984 

-24- 

questions pertained to subject matter first brought up on direct examination and disputed the 

veracity of petitioner’s testimony, which concerns his credibility as a witness.” Luis was a 

witness on his own behalf, and “[a]ny permissible matter which affects the witness’s credibility 

may be developed on cross-examination.” People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81, 130 (1998). On direct, 

Luis falsely stated that he and his wife did not exchange messages of a sexual nature, even 

though they had done so in the immediate days before their fight. This does go to Luis’s 

credibility and was a permissible subject of cross-examination. Thus, the trial court did not err in 

summarily dismissing this claim in his postconviction petition. 

¶ 70 Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

¶ 71 Lastly, Luis contends the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his claims that his 

appellate counsel was ineffective by (i) failing to argue the trial court’s refusal to submit a jury 

instruction on involuntary manslaughter violated his right to due process and a fair trial and (ii) 

failing to argue the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the text messages between him 

and Sandra. 

¶ 72 The Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. People 

v. Rogers, 197 Ill. 2d 216, 223 (2001). A defendant who claims that appellate counsel was 

ineffective for failing to raise an issue in his or her appeal must allege facts demonstrating that (i) 

the failure was objectively unreasonable and (ii) counsel’s decision prejudiced the defendant. Id.

Appellate counsel is not obligated to brief every conceivable issue, and it is not incompetence to 

refrain from raising issues that, in counsel’s judgment, are without merit, unless counsel’s 

assessment is patently wrong. People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 362 (2000). Thus, the prejudice 

inquiry requires the reviewing court to examine the merits of the underlying issue. Id. Appellate 
1-16-0984 

-25- 

counsel’s choices about which issues to pursue are entitled to substantial deference. Rogers, 197 

Ill. 2d at 223. 

¶ 73 First, on the involuntary manslaughter jury instruction, appellate counsel did raise the 

issue on direct appeal, arguing that when Luis beat Sandra, he was acting under sudden and 

intense passion stemming from serious provocation. He asserted the manner of his discovery was 

akin to being present during an adulterous act and warranted a second-degree murder instruction. 

In his postconviction petition, Luis asserts his appellate counsel did not properly raise the issue 

because instead of arguing the court’s error was an abuse of discretion based on state law, he 

should have framed it as a violation of his constitutional due process rights, which the appellate 

court would have reviewed de novo. 

¶ 74 In its order summarily dismissing Luis’s petition, the trial court observed that the United 

States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of due process rights to a jury instruction only in 

the context of capital cases and expressly reserved the question of a defendant’s general 

constitutional right to a jury instruction. See Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637 (1980). Luis 

argues, however, that the absence of binding precedent should not have precluded his appellate 

counsel from raising the argument. He also asserts that support for his due process argument in 

Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 348-49 (1993)

(O’Connor, J., concurring). There, Justice O’Connor stated that “erroneous state-law instructions

*** may violate due process and hence form the basis for relief, even in a noncapital case.” Id. at 

349. Although Justice O’Connor’s concurrence is not binding authority, Luis asserts it is an 

“arguable” foundation for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim at the first stage. 

¶ 75 We agree that the absence of Supreme Court precedent does not preclude appellate 

counsel from raising the issue. But it does support a finding that appellate counsel was not 
1-16-0984 

-26- 

incompetent for deciding instead to argue, as appellate counsel did, that the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying the involuntary manslaughter instruction. It was reasonable for appellate 

counsel to decide that in the absence of cases to support the due process argument, he was more 

likely to succeed by arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the instruction. 

¶ 76 Moreover, Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Gilmore does not, as Luis contends, 

lend strong support to his due process argument. In Gilmore, the defendant received an erroneous 

jury instruction and the court held that outside of capital cases, “instructions that contain errors 

of state law may not form the basis for federal habeas relief.” Id. at 342 (majority opinion). Thus, 

Justice O’Connor’s concurrence was addressing the possibility of a due process claim in 

noncapital cases where the instruction was incorrect, not where the trial court’s decided against 

giving a requested jury instruction based on the evidence. In the absence of any cases, we cannot 

say that Luis has a meritorious argument that his due process rights were violated. Thus, he 

cannot arguably show that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to further develop the 

due process argument. 

¶ 77 As to the cross-examination regarding the text messages between Luis and Sandra, failing 

to raise this issue did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. As noted, unless the 

underlying issue is meritorious, petitioner suffered no prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise it 

on direct appeal. We already have found a lack of merit in Luis’s argument that the trial court 

erred in permitting cross-examination about the text messages he and Sandra exchanged, 

Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it on appeal, and the trial court correctly 

dismissed Luis’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.

¶ 78 Affirmed.