People v. Estrada

── People v. Estrada ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 240821-U No. 1-24-0821 Order filed May 22, 2026 Sixth Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 13 CR 00382 ) ROBERTO ESTRADA, ) The Honorable ) Ursula Walowski, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Gamrath concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Affirmed. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance. ¶2 Postconviction counsel must make necessary amendments to a petitioner’s claims. But counsel need not formulate new claims. And when counsel files a Rule 651(c) certificate, we presume counsel did what the rule requires unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise. ¶3 Roberto Estrada contends that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance when litigating two claims: one about an exculpatory video, the other involving a DNA expert. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that counsel provided reasonable assistance regarding No. 1-24-0821 the video claim. Nor did counsel have a duty to formulate a new, more specific claim regarding a DNA expert. We affirm. ¶4 Background ¶5 Roberto Estrada petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in multiple ways. The circuit court summarily dismissed the pro se petition, but this Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ¶6 On remand, appointed counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate and, later, responded to the State’s motion to dismiss. The circuit court granted the State’s motion on all but one claim. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the remaining claim. ¶7 Estrada appeals, contending appointed counsel provided unreasonable assistance when litigating two claims dismissed at the second stage: (i) trial counsel failed to introduce an exculpatory video, and (ii) trial counsel failed to consult with and call a DNA expert. ¶8 Discovery ¶9 The State’s discovery included, among other things, a DVD. Trial counsel acknowledged receiving that video exhibit at a pretrial hearing. The disc appears on the State’s long-form answer as Inventory no. 12767311 and on the list of exhibits impounded after trial, though no party used it at trial. The disc is not part of this appellate record, so we do not know what is on it. ¶ 10 Jury Trial ¶ 11 M.P. testified she was sexually assaulted while waiting for a bus. She never saw her assailant’s face because he grabbed her from behind and threw her to the g