2022 IL App (2d) 200791-U No. 2-20-0791 Order filed February 16, 2022 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 19-CF-260 ) ADOLFO LOYA, ) Honorable ) Donald M. Tegeler Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McLaren and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) The victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish that defendant committed aggravated criminal sexual abuse by placing his hand on her breasts. (2) Defendant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective was forfeited for lack of development. ¶2 Defendant, Adolfo Loya, appeals from his conviction, after a bench trial, of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 2018)). The guilty count alleged that he “committed an act of sexual conduct with L.A., a person over 13 years of age but under 17 years of age, and the defendant is at least 5 years older than L.A., in that the defendant touched L.A.’s breast with his hand for the purpose of the sexual arousal of the defendant.” Defendant’s principal 2022 IL App (2d) 200791-U contention is that, because L.A.’s testimony was vague about how he touched her, the evidence did not establish that he committed an act of sexual conduct with her. Alternatively, defendant argues that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to (1) inform defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction, (2) call certain witnesses, (3) object to the State’s leading questions, and (4) object when the State shifted the burden of proof to the defense during the State’s closing argument. We hold that L.A.’s testimony specifically described defendant’s sexual conduct with L.A. and supported his conviction. We further hold that defendant has forfeited his ineffectiveness-assistance claims by failing to provide adequate supporting argument. We thus affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 2018)) and one count of attempted aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 11-1.60(d) (West 2018)). The first count was as we have described it; the second count alleged the same age elements but alleged that defendant attempted to put his mouth on LA.’s breast. The State alleged that the acts took place from August 19 through August 20, 2018. (The evidence suggested that the offense took place around midnight on August 19, 2018.) ¶5 Defendant elected a bench trial. In defendant’s opening statement, trial counsel asserted that defendant lacked the opportunity to commit the offenses and that L.A. must have been lying to escape her poor living conditions. Specifically, counsel stated: “[S]ometime in late July, mother literally plants her 15-year-old daughter and her cousin, who I think is a little bit older, in this …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals