People v. Gonzalez

── People v. Gonzalez ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2026 IL App (3d) 250052-U Order filed April 16, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2026 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, ) Will County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-25-0052 v. ) Circuit No. 13-CF-777 ) JUAN M. GONZALEZ, ) Honorable ) Sarah-Marie F. Jones, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Brennan and Bertani concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: Defendant’s postconviction petition stated the gist of a non-frivolous claim. Reversed and remanded. ¶2 Defendant, Juan M. Gonzalez, appeals the summary dismissal of his postconviction petition. We reverse and remand. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 As the facts are well known to the parties and set forth in detail in our previous decisions, we set forth only those facts relevant to this appeal. See People v. Gonzalez, 2017 IL App (3d) 160183; People v. Gonzalez, 2018 IL App (3d) 170716-U. ¶5 In 2013, defendant was indicted on two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2012). An interpreter was present at all court dates. ¶6 In July 2013, defense counsel told the court, “The State’s Attorney did give us an offer[;] I’m still discussing that with my client[.]” The State agreed to keep the offer open. ¶7 On July 31, counsel told the court, “Judge, I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Gonzalez at the jail with my interpreter. Upon speaking with him this morning, I feel like he still isn’t understanding what his options are. My interpreter is not at the office today. *** I would be asking for a one week date so that I could actually go over and meet with Mr. Gonzalez and be able to speak with him some more so I can make sure that he really understands what’s going on.” The State agreed to keep the offer open one more week. ¶8 In August 2013, defendant entered a blind guilty plea on both counts. Each count carried a sentencing range of 6 to 60 years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively. At the plea hearing, defendant told the court he completed six years of education and had no ability to read or write in the English language. He stated a document entitled “plea of guilty” was explained to him in Spanish with his attorney and an interpreter. The court asked if he fully discussed the pleas with his attorney, and if she had explained his rights and the effects and consequences of the gu