People v. Rubio

── People v. Rubio ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2026 IL App (3d) 240656-U Order filed April 14, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2026 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 18th Judicial Circuit, ) Du Page County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-24-0656 v. ) Circuit No. 21-CF-882 ) MARCO ANTONIO RUBIO, ) Honorable ) Ann Celine O’Hallaren Walsh, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BERTANI delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Hettel and Justice Davenport concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel is better suited for a collateral proceeding as the appellate record is insufficient to resolve the claim. ¶2 Defendant, Marco Antonio Rubio, entered into a plea agreement with the State wherein he pleaded guilty to first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2020)), admitted to the presence of an aggravating factor that the victim had a domestic violence order of protection (OP) against him at the time of the murder (id. § 9-1(b)(19)), and agreed the sentencing range was 20 to 100 years’ imprisonment or natural life. The Du Page County circuit court sentenced defendant to 70  years’ imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, arguing the sentence was excessive considering the evidence in mitigation. The court denied the motion. ¶3 On appeal, defendant argues counsel was ineffective for agreeing and advising defendant to agree to a plea with a sentencing range of 20 to 100 years’ imprisonment or natural life because it was unauthorized by statute. Specifically, he argues the applicable sentencing range was 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment or natural life and the 70-year sentence he received was unauthorized. Defendant asks this court to reduce his sentence to 60 years’ imprisonment. We affirm. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 On May 20, 2021, the State charged defendant with two counts of first degree murder (id. § 9-1(a)(1), (2)). Defendant was indicted on these charges along with three additional counts of first degree murder. The first degree murder charges were subject to a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years and not more than 60 years (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-20(a) (West 2020)). The charges arose from the murder of defendant’s wife, Esmeralda DeLuna, who defendant stabbed several times in the presence of their three minor children. Officers responded to a call made by a neighbor who heard screaming in a nearby apartment. When they arrived at the apartment, officers came in contact with th