People v. Reinking

2024 IL App (4th) 230486

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 7, 2024
• Docket: 4-23-0486
• Status: Published

Opinion

2024 IL App (4th) 230486 FILED May 7, 2024 NO. 4-23-0486 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Tazewell County JEFFREY L. REINKING, ) No. 19CF145 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Christopher R. Doscotch, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Doherty and Lannerd concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Following a bench trial, defendant, Jeffrey L. Reinking, was found guilty of

unlawful delivery of a firearm and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Defendant appeals, arguing

the trial court erred by (1) denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, (2) denying his

motion for a directed finding at the close of the State’s case, (3) finding him guilty at the close of

trial, and (4) rejecting his posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 A. Indictment

¶4 In April 2019, a grand jury returned a bill of indictment charging defendant with

unlawful delivery of a firearm as set forth in section 24-3(A)(e) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Criminal Code) (720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(e) (West 2016)). Specifically, the indictment alleged

defendant had committed the charged offense in that he, sometime between November 12 and 30,

2017, “knowingly gave a firearm, a Bushmaster AR-15, to Travis Reinking, who had been a patient

at Methodist Medical Center of Illinois Mental Health Unit within the past five years.” Defendant

retained counsel to represent him against the charge.

¶5 B. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment

¶6 In June 2019, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it

(1) failed to state an offense and (2) was based upon a statute, section 24-3(A)(e) of the Criminal

Code (id.), that is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him. In pertinent part,

defendant, as for his first argument, asserted the indictment failed to set forth the nature of the

offense charged by not specifying the alleged unlawful “giving” conduct. As for his second

argument, defendant asserted the statutory language prohibiting the selling or giving of a firearm

did not provide sufficient notice that it would include, as applicable in this case, the return of

Travis’s own firearm to him. Following a June 2020 hearing, the trial court, the Honorable

Katherine S. Gorman presiding, entered a written order denying defendant’s motion.

¶7 C. New Counsel

¶8 In August 2020, defendant’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case due to

irreconcilable differences with defendant, which the trial court allowed. Defendant retained new

counsel, Attorney Kevin Sullivan (Attorney Sullivan), to represent him against the charge.

Attorney Sullivan entered a formal appearance as defense counsel on September 1, 2020.

¶9 D. Bench Trial

¶ 10 On May 13, 2022, the trial court, the Honorable Christopher R. Doscotch presiding,

conducted a bench trial.

-2- ¶ 11 1. Inquiry of Defendant

¶ 12 At the commencement of the proceeding, the trial court addressed defendant in

open court. The court admonished defendant of the charge in the indictment, which defendant

indicated he “heard.” The court asked defendant if he was in good physical and mental condition

for the proceeding, to which defendant responded, “Yeah.” The court asked defendant if he

understood the purpose of the proceeding, to which defendant responded, “Yes.” The court asked

defendant if he was under the influence of any alcohol or drugs that would affect his ability to

participate in the proceeding, to which defendant responded, “No.” The court asked defendant if

he discussed the case with his counsel, to which defendant responded, “Yes.” After Attorney

Sullivan informed the court defendant had declined prior plea offers, defendant, on examination

of the court, confirmed his counsel’s statement was correct. The court admonished defendant,

should he leave or not appear at any later sentencing hearing, the matter may proceed in absentia,

to which defendant indicated he understood. And last, the court admonished defendant of his right

to testify, to which defendant indicated he understood.

¶ 13 2. Stipulations

¶ 14 The State, following the inquiry of defendant, represented to the trial court that the

parties had agreed to several stipulations. Attorney Sullivan, on examination by the court, agreed

with the State’s representation. Attorney Sullivan also indicated he had reviewed the stipulations

“[a]s recently as yesterday” with defendant. The court paused to read the stipulations. The

stipulations, which are set forth in a document signed by both the State and Attorney Sullivan, are

as follows:

“1. Unity[P]oint Methodist Hospital Peoria is a medical

facility that receives patients for all types of medical care including

-3- mental health care. Within Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center

Hospital Peoria, there is a department called the Behavioral Health

Unit, where persons with mental illness are evaluated and provided

mental health care and mental health treatment. The Behavioral

Health Unit of Unity[P]oint Methodist Peoria is and was and has

been at all times relevant and material, a ‘mental institution’ as

defined in 720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(e). Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical

Center Hospital Peoria is and was and has been at all times material

and relevant, a hospital, institution, clinic, or evaluation facility,

mental health center or part thereof which is used primarily for the

care or treatment of persons with mental illness.

2. Late on the night of May 26, 2016, Travis Reinking was

transported by an Emergency Response Service employee from the

area of 1005 W. Jackson Street in Morton, proximate to a CVS

Pharmacy parking lot, to Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center

Hospital Peoria.

3. Travis Reinking was involuntarily admitted to the

Behavioral Health Unit at Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center

Peoria on May 27, 2016[,] and remained admitted to the Behavioral

Health Unit at Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center in Peoria

until being released on June 3, 2016. Defendant Jeffrey Reinking, at

all times since May 27, 2016, knew that Travis Reinking was

admitted to the Behavioral Health Unit at Unity[P]oint Methodist

-4- Medical Center in Peoria on May 27, 2016[,] and knew that Travis

Reinking remained admitted to the Behavioral Health Unit at

Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center in Peoria until June 3, 2016.

4. While admitted at Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center

Hospital Peoria from May 27, 2016[,] to June 3, 2016, Travis

Reinking received mental health treatment. During those dates from

May 27, 2016[,] to June 3, 2016, Travis Reinking was a ‘patient in

mental institution’ as that term is defined in 720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(e).

5. Defendant Jeffrey Reinking had in his possession a

Bushmaster AR-15 firearm owned by Travis Reinking. Defendant,

between November 12 and November 30, 2017, at Morton, Illinois

in the County of Tazewell, knowingly gave the Bushmaster AR-15

firearm to Travis Reinking at a time less than five (5) years from the

date of Travis’[s] admission to the Behavioral Health Unit at

Unity[P]oint Methodist Medical Center in Peoria.”

¶ 15 3. Opening Statements

¶ 16 In opening statements, the State, after addressing the elements it was required to

prove to establish defendant’s guilt of the charged offense, asserted that most of the elements were

proven by the stipulations “signed by both parties and presented to the [trial] [c]ourt.” The State

then reviewed those facts, which the stipulations established. For instance, the State stated the

stipulations “establish that the defendant Jeffrey Reinking knowingly gave Travis Reinking that

firearm at a time less than five years from the time that Travis Reinking was admitted to the

UnityPoint Methodist Medical Center behavioral-health unit.” The State contended the only issue

-5- not directly addressed by the stipulations was whether defendant knew Travis was a “patient in a

mental institution” as it had been statutorily defined. Specifically, the State contended the issue,

applying the statutory definition, was whether defendant knew Travis’s admission at UnityPoint

was “for mental[ ]health treatment.”

¶ 17 In response, Attorney Sullivan agreed with the State’s representation of the primary

issue before the trial court—whether defendant knew Travis’s admission at UnityPoint was for

“mental[ ]health treatment.” Attorney Sullivan also asserted another issue related to whether

defendant could “give” Travis a firearm that Travis already owned. Attorney Sullivan asserted the

terms “give” and “gave”—as set forth in the “statute” and “indictment”—did not, as a “matter of

law,” include returning something to somebody who already owns it. As for the secondary issue,

Attorney Sullivan, on inquiry of the court, indicated the issue stemmed from the pretrial motion to

dismiss the indictment and asserted he was raising the issue to “preserve” it for appeal.

¶ 18 4. State’s Case

¶ 19 The State first presented testimony from Ricardo Mancha, an Illinois state police

trooper. Trooper Mancha testified about an incident on May 26, 2016, when he was a patrol deputy

with the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office. Around 10 p.m. that day, Trooper Mancha was

patrolling in Morton when he observed Rob Mooney from Emergency Response Services (ERS)

in a CVS parking lot. Trooper Mancha testified ERS did “mental[ ]health evaluations.”

¶ 20 Trooper Mancha approached Mooney in the CVS parking lot to see if he needed

assistance. Mooney requested Trooper Mancha to stay as he was speaking with an individual who

was possibly having paranoid delusions and a mental health crisis. Trooper Mancha identified the

individual with whom Mooney was referring as Travis Reinking. Trooper Mancha also identified

other individuals present in the parking lot as Travis’s father, defendant, as well as Travis’s mother

-6- and grandmother. Trooper Mancha observed Mooney speaking with Travis “[a]nd his family”

when Trooper Mancha initially arrived at the scene.

¶ 21 Trooper Mancha stood next to Mooney while Mooney spoke with Travis. Trooper

Mancha estimated Travis’s family, including defendant, were about one car length away from

them. Trooper Mancha testified Travis was “irate, speaking loudly about the delusions he was

having,” specifically “explaining how the entertainer Taylor Swift was stalking him and hacking

his electronic devices.” Travis, in so explaining, acknowledged “it sounded crazy” but maintained

it was true. Trooper Mancha believed Travis needed mental health assistance based upon his

statements and suggested the same to “[e]veryone who was there at the time.” Travis refused the

suggested mental health assistance, got into his vehicle, and drove away.

¶ 22 After Travis left the CVS parking lot, Trooper Mancha learned from Travis’s

“family” and Mooney that Travis had made suicidal statements prior to Trooper Mancha’s arrival.

Trooper Mancha also learned Travis had access to firearms at his residence in Tremont. This new

information caused Trooper Mancha further concern about Travis’s mental state, as well as the

safety of Travis and others. As a result, Trooper Mancha contacted the Tremont Police Department

and requested an officer go to Travis’s residence.

¶ 23 Shortly thereafter, Travis returned to the CVS parking lot in his vehicle, where

Trooper Mancha and the others were still present. Travis exited his vehicle and approached them.

Trooper Mancha described Travis as still being “irate, speaking loudly about the delusions he was

having.” Trooper Mancha testified Travis specifically conveyed the following:

“[H]e had agreed to meet Taylor Swift at the Dairy Queen in Morton

and he went to the Dairy Queen to meet her. Once he got to the—

arrived at the Dairy Queen, she was across the street. When he saw

-7- her, they made eye contact. She took off running down the street.

He followed her. He chased her. She was running. She had—he

stated she scaled the side of a building and got on the roof, so he did

the same, followed her up there. And when he had gotten to the roof,

she was gone.”

Trooper Mancha testified Travis’s family, including defendant, was approximately one car length

away from Travis when he was making these statements.

¶ 24 Trooper Mancha testified Travis attempted to leave the CVS parking lot a second

time. At that point, Trooper Mancha and another patrol officer who had arrived at the scene, Jason

Cabell, stood between Travis and his vehicle, and Travis stopped. Trooper Mancha testified they

explained to Travis that it was in his best interest to seek mental health assistance because he was

experiencing a mental health crisis. They also offered to drive Travis to get the recommended

assistance. Eventually, Travis agreed to seek mental health assistance and leave with Mooney.

Mooney and Travis left in Mooney’s vehicle, and Officer Cabell followed behind in a marked

patrol vehicle.

¶ 25 Trooper Mancha testified he spoke with Travis’s family members, including

defendant, after Travis left with Mooney. Trooper Mancha indicated Travis’s family members

were directly in front of him while he was speaking with them, and he believed he had their

attention while he was speaking. When asked what he told Travis’s family members, Trooper

Mancha testified, “I just clarified where he was going. He was going to OSF—er, not OSF,

UnityPoint Methodist, because they have a mental[ ]health facility there, with Rob Mooney, and

just clarified that Officer Cabell was just following for their own safety.” Trooper Mancha testified

he also advised Travis’s family not to entertain Travis’s delusions. Trooper Mancha and Travis’s

-8- family discussed what to do with Travis’s vehicle, and the family agreed defendant would drive

Travis’s vehicle away from the scene.

¶ 26 On cross-examination, Trooper Mancha agreed he did not know specifically what

the family heard or understood and it was possible they could not have heard him. Trooper Mancha

also agreed, although he had training to identify a “psychological episode,” he was not qualified

to diagnose a psychiatric condition.

¶ 27 The State next presented testimony from Jason Cabell, an investigator with the

Morton Police Department. Investigator Cabell testified about an incident on May 26, 2016, when

he was a patrol officer with the Morton Police Department. That evening, he went to the CVS in

Morton. Upon his arrival, Trooper Mancha, Mooney from ERS, Travis, Travis’s mother, Travis’s

grandmother, and defendant were present. Investigator Cabell noticed Travis was “clearly

frustrated, agitated, upset.” Investigator Cabell testified Travis made statements indicating Taylor

Swift was talking to him through his electronic devices, including his cell phone, Netflix account,

and television. Travis also talked about following Taylor Swift to the Dairy Queen in Morton and

trying to find her on top of a building. Investigator Cabell testified Travis was not talking quietly

and, at times, was yelling. Investigator Cabell also testified defendant was a few feet away from

Travis when Travis was making these statements. Investigator Cabell and others “tried to talk

[Travis] into going to get treatment.” Travis eventually agreed “but he made a statement that it was

against his will.” Mooney drove Travis to UnityPoint Methodist hospital, while Investigator Cabell

followed behind in a marked police vehicle.

¶ 28 5. Motion for a Directed Finding

¶ 29 At the close of the State’s case, defendant moved for a directed finding, arguing the

State failed to present any evidence showing he knew Travis’s admission at UnityPoint was for

-9- mental health treatment. The trial court denied defendant’s motion. Attorney Sullivan then

requested a recess to speak with defendant about testifying, which the court allowed.

¶ 30 6. Defendant’s Case

¶ 31 Attorney Sullivan, following the recess, presented testimony from defendant.

Defendant testified to being born with hearing loss, wearing hearing aids, and having difficulty

hearing. Defendant was then examined about the circumstances related to the charge in this case.

¶ 32 Defendant testified, on May 26, 2016, there was an incident at the CVS in Morton.

Defendant drove to the CVS and, upon his arrival, his son, Travis, as well as his wife and mother

were present. Officers were just arriving. Defendant testified he could not hear the conversation

Travis was having with the “first responders.” Defendant testified he was present when Travis left

in a vehicle. When asked if he was aware Travis was taken to a hospital, defendant testified he

learned that fact later on, but he did not know why Travis was taken there and alluded to an

“evaluation because he had gotten hurt on a job.”

¶ 33 Defendant testified he later learned Travis was in the behavioral health unit at

UnityPoint. He asserted he was not notified of, or involved in, a mental-health court proceeding in

Peoria on May 27, 2016. Defendant visited Travis “a couple times” while Travis was at UnityPoint.

Defendant explained he and his wife “just sat at a table and talked to [Travis].” Defendant did not

see anyone provide treatment, medication, or counseling to Travis. Defendant asserted he was not

told why Travis was there, he did not ask anyone why Travis was there, and Travis did not tell him

why he was there. Defendant testified he was never made aware Travis was sent to the behavioral

health unit for mental health treatment.

¶ 34 After Travis was discharged from UnityPoint, defendant picked him up. Defendant

testified Travis never told him what transpired when he was in the hospital, and defendant never

- 10 - asked. Defendant asserted Travis seemed “grounded” and “normal” upon his discharge; there was

no “Taylor Swift talk.”

¶ 35 In middle to late 2017, defendant took possession of Travis’s firearms, which were

purchased and owned by Travis. Defendant did so because Travis’s Firearm Owner’s Identification

(FOID) card was revoked for a residency issue. Attorney Sullivan asked, “In one of our

stipulations, number 5 to be exact, it said that you had a Bushmaster AR-15 firearm in your

possession; is that correct?” Defendant responded, “That’s what they say. I didn’t know what the

firearms were at that time.”

¶ 36 Defendant testified Travis later demanded the return of his firearms and threatened

to sue him for withholding them from him. Defendant “checked the website, the FOID Act, on

residency” and contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office for advice. Defendant believed

Travis “could have [the firearms] and pass through the state.”

¶ 37 Defendant returned the firearms to Travis. He did so when Travis had his vehicle

loaded with other items and was leaving Illinois. Defendant did not believe Travis would harm

himself or anybody else when he returned the firearms to him.

¶ 38 On cross-examination, defendant was asked, “You went to [the CVS] because you

knew [Travis] was having some mental[ ]health difficulties, correct?” Defendant responded:

“Well, he was complaining about his phone and laptop, and I didn’t

know how to check that out. I told him he needed to go to the police,

and he said the police wouldn’t look at it. So that’s why he got this

ERS number, and I didn’t know what that was.”

Defendant was asked about the complaints Travis had about his phone and laptop, to which he

replied, “He was hacked. Somebody was hacking it. Like, I don’t know, it could have been Taylor

- 11 - Swift, like he talked about, doing something on his phone and his laptop.” When asked if defendant

believed Taylor Swift had done something to his son’s phone and laptop, defendant replied, “I

don’t know. I don’t know.” When asked if defendant believed Taylor Swift could have done

something to his son’s phone and laptop, defendant replied, “Well, I don’t know if it’s her or

somebody else. Somebody—the way Travis was acting, somebody was doing something.”

¶ 39 Defendant testified he called ERS and “talked to Rob.” When asked if he

understood ERS to be a service for persons with mental health issues, defendant replied, “No.”

When asked why he did not call the police, defendant replied, “Because I thought it was—I thought

this guy was like a counselor that would help him sort out what was going on with his devices.”

As to his understanding of the function of ERS, defendant explained, “I thought it was just

counselors. A guy would come out and help him assess what’s going on.” Defendant testified he

called the ERS number for assistance without knowing what the number was for “[b]ecause I didn’t

know what else to do.”

¶ 40 Defendant testified he hoped Travis was going to UnityPoint to be evaluated for a

work-related injury. Defendant testified he did not talk to anyone other than family members at

the CVS because, “if I’m standing a car length away, I could not hear them.” The State asked,

“How far apart do you believe we are right now?” Defendant replied, “Yeah, but we’re—it’s quiet

and we’re talking. I don’t know if—you know, hearing aids pick up everything. If cars are driving

by, it picks that up.”

¶ 41 The State asked, “Would it be fair to say that when you were there in the CVS

parking lot that night you were concerned about your son Travis Reinking?” Defendant replied,

“Yeah. I wanted to help him, see what was going on with his phone and his laptop.” Defendant

testified he did not speak to Travis while in the CVS parking lot and in front of the police officers

- 12 - because Travis had accused him of possessing drugs. The State asked defendant if he thought it

was odd that Travis would accuse him of possessing drugs, to which defendant replied, “I don’t

know.”

¶ 42 Defendant acknowledged he visited Travis twice at the behavioral health unit. He

agreed he had to pass through a locked door to get inside.

¶ 43 The State asked, “[Y]our testimony is you believe on this night of May 26 that there

was a threat of some kind to [Travis], correct?” Defendant replied, “For his phone and laptop?”

The State asked, “You believe there was a threat to your son, correct?” Defendant replied, “Well,

I didn’t know what was going on with it.” The State asked, “And during all this time, you don’t

ask any questions about what’s going on with your son, correct?” Defendant replied, “Right.”

¶ 44 7. Closing Arguments

¶ 45 In closing arguments, the State argued it had proven defendant’s guilt of the

charged offense. As it did in its opening statement, the State addressed the stipulations. For

instance, the State quoted stipulation 5 and then argued it “clearly establishes that the defendant

knowingly gave the firearm to another, that being Travis Reinking.”

¶ 46 In response, Attorney Sullivan argued the State had not proven defendant knew

Travis’s admission at UnityPoint was for mental health treatment. Attorney Sullivan also noted he

was “renew[ing]” and “preserving” its position that the return of Travis’s own firearm to him was

not prohibited.

¶ 47 8. Trial Court’s Finding

¶ 48 After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the trial court found

defendant guilty of the charged offense. The court, in reaching its finding, found the testimonies

of Trooper Mancha and Investigator Cabell were credible. As for defendant’s testimony, the court

- 13 - found there were “some [credibility] issues.” Specifically, the court ruled:

“As to Mr. Reinking’s testimony, the Court does have some

issues with the credibility of his testimony. The part about calling

ERS about computer laptop hacking is just one of the various issues

in that regard. And specifically, in terms of the officer directly

addressing Mr. Reinking and Mr. Reinking’s denial of the same, the

Court will find the officer more credible on that point.”

The court noted defendant’s argument regarding the interpretation of the statute setting forth the

criminal offense had been considered, rejected, and preserved for appeal.

¶ 49 E. Posttrial Motion and New Counsel

¶ 50 In June 2022, defendant, through Attorney Sullivan, filed a timely posttrial motion

challenging various rulings of the trial court. Defendant retained new counsel, and Attorney

Sullivan was allowed to withdraw from the case. Defendant’s new counsel filed an amended

posttrial motion contending the court erred by denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the

indictment, denying his motion for a directed finding at the close of the State’s case, and finding

him guilty at the close of trial. Defendant also claimed Attorney Sullivan provided ineffective

assistance by agreeing to the stipulations, failing to present certain defenses, and failing to prepare

him to testify.

¶ 51 F. Hearing on the Posttrial Motion

¶ 52 In December 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s posttrial

motion. Defendant presented the court with several exhibits as well as testimony from Attorney

Sullivan, James Muncy, and Judy Reinking. Defendant also testified.

- 14 - ¶ 53 1. Attorney Sullivan

¶ 54 Attorney Sullivan testified he had been an attorney for 35 years and had handled a

“multitude of different types of cases” across Illinois. He primarily practiced criminal law. Over

the years, he had handled in excess of 100 trials.

¶ 55 Around September 2020, Attorney Sullivan was retained to represent defendant

against the charge in this case. Thereafter, Attorney Sullivan met with defendant at court

appearances, at his office, and, on at least one occasion, at defendant’s house. Attorney Sullivan

estimated he met with defendant approximately 10 times. The meetings were typically an hour in

length, with some lasting several hours and some occurring on weekends. Defendant would often

bring his wife or a friend with him to the meetings. Attorney Sullivan recalled at least one meeting

where defendant was alone. Attorney Sullivan estimated he had spent 100 hours representing

defendant in this matter.

¶ 56 As for the stipulations, Attorney Sullivan testified, on January 6, 2022, he e-mailed

draft stipulations to defendant. On January 11, 2022, defendant responded he was not agreeing to

the stipulations so they could talk again. Attorney Sullivan’s responded to defendant’s e-mail with,

“Really?” On January 13, defendant forwarded an e-mail to Attorney Sullivan from defendant’s

friend, Jim Muncy, concerning suggested changes to the stipulations. On January 15, 2022,

defendant texted Attorney Sullivan to ask if he could make the changes suggested by Muncy, to

which Attorney Sullivan told defendant he had already done so.

¶ 57 Attorney Sullivan believed there were two or three drafts of the stipulations. The

final draft was prepared by the State and sent to him. Attorney Sullivan did not recall if he e-mailed

or texted the revised stipulations to defendant following the exchange about them in January 2022

but asserted that, over the months that followed, he and defendant met and discussed them. When

- 15 - asked if he went over the stipulations with defendant sometime between mid-January and the first

part of May 2022, Attorney Sullivan testified, “Yes.” When asked if he knew the date he went

over the stipulations with defendant, Attorney Sullivan testified, “One of the days was the day

before the trial when he was in the office. Before that, I think we got in in March of 2022. March

7th maybe, give or take.” As for his review of the stipulations with defendant the day before trial,

Attorney Sullivan testified, “Oh, I—we went over it, I maybe didn’t show it to him ***. We

discussed them, each one of them, the substance of each one.”

¶ 58 Attorney Sullivan believed the stipulations tendered at defendant’s trial were

acceptable to defendant. Attorney Sullivan testified he did not know if defendant saw the final

draft of the stipulations but knew they had “discussed them as recently as the day before trial.”

Attorney Sullivan testified defendant never objected to the stipulations or expressed concerns

about them on the day of the trial.

¶ 59 As for the substance of the stipulations, Attorney Sullivan testified he stipulated to

facts he believed “were very easy to prove by the State.” As for the stipulation to the fact Travis

was a patient in a mental institution, Attorney Sullivan testified, “[I]t was a very easily proved fact

and I didn’t want a witness coming and testifying live to that.” As for the stipulation to the fact

defendant “gave” the firearm to Travis, Attorney Sullivan acknowledged “perhaps in second

thought I shouldn’t have used the term ‘gave,’ but I did everything to certainly preserve that issue

and make it understood exactly what happened in that situation.”

¶ 60 Attorney Sullivan testified about the defense theories he chose to pursue at

defendant’s trial. Attorney Sullivan testified “the best one” he found was defendant was not aware

Travis had received mental health treatment while at UnityPoint. Attorney Sullivan indicated he

also adopted the pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment.

- 16 - ¶ 61 Attorney Sullivan was asked about other theories of defense, all of which he

indicated he considered and chose not to pursue. As for a defense based upon the fact the Illinois

State Police was not notified of Travis’s involuntary commitment, which would have warranted

Travis’s FOID card being revoked on that ground, Attorney Sullivan testified he did not think that

would be the “strongest defense” and, in fact, was not sure if it even qualified as a defense. As for

a defense based upon defendant having contacted the Tazewell County Sherrif’s Department about

returning Travis’s firearms to him, Attorney Sullivan testified he reviewed recordings of

discussions defendant had with sheriff’s deputies and the discussions concerned residency issues,

not mental health issues. Attorney Sullivan believed that fact “mitigated the possibility of

effectively asserting” any such defense.

¶ 62 Attorney Sullivan was examined about preparing defendant to testify at trial.

Attorney Sullivan explained he told defendant that he hoped defendant would not have to testify

but there was a “possibility” as often times “those decisions are made during the middle of a trial.”

When asked why he did not “prepare” defendant to testify if he believed there was a possibility of

defendant having to do so, Attorney Sullivan testified:

“Because every time we had talked about this case from the first day

that I assumed his representation, he told a consistent story. We

talked about exactly what the defense was, and we talked about why

I wanted him to testify that day, and I thought he could certainly

repeat the story that we’ve talked about ad nauseam a number of

times.”

¶ 63 2. James Muncy

¶ 64 James Muncy testified he was a business marketing professor who had been

- 17 - defendant’s friend for approximately two years. In January 2022, Muncy reviewed and suggested

changes to draft stipulations in this case. Muncy attended approximately three meetings between

defendant and Attorney Sullivan, which lasted “[a]bout an hour.” When asked if the stipulations

were discussed during the meetings he attended, Muncy replied, “It could have been discussed in

the abstract, but no specifics.” Muncy asserted he did not see the written stipulations again until

after defendant’s trial. Muncy asserted he would not have agreed to the stipulations had he seen

them prior to the trial. Muncy acknowledged being present at the trial. Muncy also acknowledged

he was unhappy with the finding of guilt and did not want to see his friend be punished.

¶ 65 3. Judy Reinking

¶ 66 Judy Reinking, defendant’s wife, testified she and defendant met with Attorney

Sullivan on May 12, 2022, for “a couple [of] hours.” As for the substance of that meeting, Judy

testified there “wasn’t a lot of details, you know, and we did some small talk” about “family and

things like that, you know.” Judy testified Attorney Sullivan “[a]bsolutely” did not address the

stipulations during the meeting and also had not done so at any other meeting she attended. Judy

asserted, had she seen the stipulations, she would have raised concerns about them. Judy

acknowledged being present at defendant’s trial. Judy also acknowledged she was unhappy with

the finding of guilt and did not want to see her husband be punished.

¶ 67 4. Defendant

¶ 68 Defendant testified he has a hearing disability, has difficulty hearing, and wears

hearing aids. Defendant testified it is difficult for him to hear when people face away from him.

¶ 69 Defendant acknowledged attending several meetings with Attorney Sullivan, some

of which lasted several hours. Defendant also acknowledged attending several court appearances

with Attorney Sullivan. Defendant testified his wife or Muncy were always with him at the

- 18 - meetings.

¶ 70 As for the stipulations, defendant testified, in January 2022, he objected to the

stipulations after receiving them. Thereafter, he never received revised written stipulations. As for

his meeting with Attorney Sullivan on May 12, 2022, defendant testified Attorney Sullivan

“probably told me what to maybe expect in here, you know, the atmosphere, and whatever is going

on.” Defendant testified he was not shown the revised stipulations during that meeting and, had he

been shown, he would not have agreed to them. Defendant acknowledged he did not object to the

stipulations or communicate concerns about them to Attorney Sullivan or the trial court at his trial.

Defendant asserted he might have spoken up or said something to Attorney Sullivan had he heard

the stipulations. Defendant also asserted he did not know he could object to the stipulations.

¶ 71 As for testifying, defendant asserted he was not prepared to do so by Attorney

Sullivan.

¶ 72 Defendant acknowledged he was unhappy with the finding of guilt and did not want

to be punished.

¶ 73 5. Trial Court’s Ruling

¶ 74 After receiving both oral and written arguments and taking the matter under

advisement, the trial court entered a three-page, single-spaced order denying defendant’s posttrial

motion. The court stood on the previous rulings denying the pretrial motion to dismiss the

indictment, denying the motion for a directed finding at the close of the State’s case, and finding

defendant guilty at the close of trial. As for defendant’s posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, the court rejected it. In doing so, the court indicated it considered all of the evidence

before it, including the testimony presented at the hearing on the posttrial motion. The court found

Attorney Sullivan’s testimony to be credible. With respect to the testimony of defendant, Judy

- 19 - Reinking, and James Muncy, the court indicated it “views and considers their testimony from the

lens of persons dissatisfied with the case outcome.” In pertinent part, the court found (1) Attorney

Sullivan “orally reviewed the stipulations with defendant on several occasions” following the

January 2022 emails, (2) defendant “did not object to the final version of the stipulations,” and

(3) “the stipulations were a matter of trial tactics and strategy.” The court concluded Attorney

Sullivan’s “actions were not deficient and were a product of sound trial strategy.” The court further

concluded that, even if it was deficient for Attorney Sullivan to stipulate to the fact defendant

“gave” the firearm to Travis, defendant’s claim still failed as no prejudice resulted from that

stipulation.

¶ 75 G. Sentencing

¶ 76 In March 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, it was

stipulated (1) Travis Reinking was convicted of, amongst other crimes, four counts of first degree

murder for killing four people at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee, on April 22, 2018, and

(2) the “Bushmaster firearm” that defendant “returned to” Travis in November 2017 was used by

Travis to commit the 2018 killings. The court, after considering the evidence and recommendations

presented, sentenced defendant to 18 months in prison. Defendant filed a timely motion to

reconsider his sentence, which the court denied after a May 2023 hearing.

¶ 77 This appeal followed.

¶ 78 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 79 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by (1) denying his pretrial motion

to dismiss the indictment, (2) denying his motion for a directed finding at the close of the State’s

case, (3) finding him guilty at the close of trial, and (4) rejecting his posttrial claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. The State disagrees with each of defendant’s arguments.

- 20 - ¶ 80 A. The Denial of the Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Indictment

¶ 81 Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the

indictment. Defendant maintains the indictment should have been dismissed because it (1) fails to

state the nature of the charge and (2) is based upon a statute, section 24-3(A)(e) of the Criminal

Code (720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(e) (West 2016)), that is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as

applied to him.

¶ 82 We begin with defendant’s contention that the indictment should have been

dismissed because it fails to state the nature of the charge.

¶ 83 “A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to be informed of the nature and

cause of criminal accusations made against him.” People v. Carey, 2018 IL 121371, ¶ 20, 104

N.E.3d 1150; see U.S. Const., amend. VI; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8. In Illinois, this right is

implemented by section 111-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) (725

ILCS 5/111-3 (West 2016)), which sets forth specific pleading requirements for a criminal charge.

Carey, 2018 IL 121371, ¶ 20. Where, as here, a charging instrument is challenged in a pretrial

motion, “the charging instrument must strictly comply with the requirements in section 111-3(a).”

Id. ¶ 21; see, e.g., People v. Kidd, 2022 IL 127904, ¶ 13, 215 N.E.3d 908.

¶ 84 Section 111-3(a)(3) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/111-3(a)(3) (West 2016))

states any criminal charge must set “forth the nature *** of the offense charged.” It is well

established that “[t]he language of the statute can serve to apprise the defendant of *** the nature

*** of the offense, so long as the statutory language specifies, with reasonable certainty, the type

of conduct being alleged.” People v. Wisslead, 108 Ill. 2d 389, 394, 484 N.E.2d 1081, 1083 (1985).

The issue of whether a charging instrument states the nature of the offense charged is a question

of law, subject to de novo review. See Kidd, 2022 IL 127904, ¶ 14.

- 21 - ¶ 85 In this case, defendant was charged with unlawful delivery of a firearm, as set forth

in section 24-3(A)(e) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(e) (West 2016)). Section

24-3(A)(e) provides:

“(A) A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or

delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly does any of the

following:

***

(e) Sells or gives any firearm to any person who has

been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years.

In this subsection (e):

‘Mental institution’ means any hospital,

institution, clinic, evaluation facility, mental health

center, or part thereof, which is used primarily for the

‘Patient in a mental institution’ means the

person was admitted, either voluntarily or

involuntarily, to a mental institution for mental

health treatment, unless the treatment was voluntary

and solely for an alcohol abuse disorder and no other

secondary substance abuse disorder or mental

illness.” Id.

¶ 86 The indictment in this case alleged defendant had committed the offense of

unlawful delivery of a firearm in that he, sometime between November 12 and 30, 2017,

- 22 - “knowingly gave a firearm, a Bushmaster AR-15, to Travis Reinking, who had been a patient at

Methodist Medical Center of Illinois Mental Health Unit within the past five years.”

¶ 87 Defendant claims the indictment fails to state the nature of the charge in that it does

not specify the alleged unlawful “giving” conduct. We disagree. The indictment undisputedly uses

statutory language to describe the prohibited conduct. See People v. Klimek, 2023 IL App (2d)

220372, ¶ 56, 228 N.E.3d 387 (“Ordinarily, when the counts of an indictment follow the statutory

language in setting out the nature and elements of an offense, the requirements of section 111-3

are met.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). In fact, the indictment narrows the conduct alleged

to have been unlawful by omitting the statutory “selling” language and using only the statutory

“giving” language. While it is true, as defendant asserts, the statutory term “give” encompasses

several types of giving (i.e., gifting, transferring, or returning), we find the language specifies, with

reasonable certainty, the type of unlawful conduct being alleged. See id. (“If the statutory language

describes specific conduct, there is no need for the charge to specify the exact means by which the

conduct was carried out.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Indeed, defendant does not identify

any analogous case finding similar language of an indictment to be insufficient.

¶ 88 We find the indictment states the nature of the charged offense and the trial court

did not err in denying defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on this basis.

¶ 89 Next, we consider defendant’s contention that the indictment should have been

dismissed because it is based upon a statute, section 24-3(A)(e) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS

5/24-3(A)(e) (West 2016)), that is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him.

¶ 90 We begin with “the principle that all statutes are presumed to be constitutional.”

People v. Waid, 221 Ill. 2d 464, 480, 851 N.E.2d 1210, 1219 (2006). It is the burden of defendant,

as the party challenging the validity of the statute, “to demonstrate clearly a constitutional

- 23 - violation.” Id. The issue of whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law, subject to

de novo review. People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109, 135, 858 N.E.2d 15, 32 (2006).

¶ 91 A statute will be found to violate constitutional due process protections on the basis

of vagueness “only if the terms of the statute are so ill-defined ‘that the ultimate decision as to its

meaning rests on the opinions and whims of the trier of fact rather than any objective criteria or

facts.’ ” People v. Molnar, 222 Ill. 2d 495, 524, 857 N.E.2d 209, 226 (2006) (quoting People v.

Burpo, 164 Ill. 2d 261, 266, 647 N.E.2d 996, 999 (1995)). As is pertinent to this case, a statute will

be deemed impermissibly vague “if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable

opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits.” City of Chicago v. Pooh Bah Enterprises,

Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 390, 441-42, 865 N.E.2d 133, 165-66 (2006) (citing Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S.

703, 732 (2000)).

¶ 92 Defendant, similar to his prior claim concerning the sufficiency of the indictment,

claims section 24-3(A)(e) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because no person could

understand the prohibition against the selling or giving of a firearm includes a prohibition against

returning a firearm to its owner. We disagree. When measured by common understanding and

practices, we find a person of ordinary intelligence can understand the prohibition against the

selling or giving of a firearm to a person who has been a patient in a mental institution within the

previous five years equally prohibits the return of a firearm to a person who has been a patient in

a mental health institution within the previous five years. See People v. Capitol News, Inc., 137

Ill. 2d 162, 171, 560 N.E.2d 303, 307 (1990) (“An impossible standard of preciseness of language

and expression cannot be required; it is enough that the law’s language and meaning are

sufficiently definite when measured by common understanding and practices.”). We find the

purpose of the statute is readily conveyed by its plain language—to prevent persons from

- 24 - knowingly giving firearms, regardless of how they are given, to persons who have been admitted

to mental institutions for mental health treatment within the previous five years. Section 24-3(A)(e)

is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant. It is also not unconstitutional on its face.

See, e.g., Molnar, 222 Ill. 2d at 529.

¶ 93 We find the indictment is not based upon a statute that is unconstitutionally vague

and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on

this basis.

¶ 94 B. The Denial of the Motion for a Directed Finding

¶ 95 Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed finding

at the close of the State’s case. Defendant maintains a directed finding of not guilty should have

been entered because the State failed to present any evidence showing he knew Travis was a

“patient in a mental institution” as it has been statutorily defined.

¶ 96 The State asserts the issue is forfeited and should not be considered because

defendant did not renew his motion after presenting his own evidence. While the State’s assertion

has merit, we decline the State’s invitation to not consider the issue. See People v. Cazacu, 373

Ill. App. 3d 465, 473, 869 N.E.2d 381, 389 (2007) (“It is well settled that if a defendant chooses

to present evidence following the denial of his motion for a directed finding at the close of the

State’s evidence, he waives any error resulting from the trial court’s ruling on the motion unless

he renews his motion at the close of all evidence.”). Defendant raised the issue in his posttrial

motion, the State responded to it, and the trial court addressed it on the merits. Under these

circumstances, we will consider the issue. See People v. Raney, 2014 IL App (4th) 130551, ¶ 33,

8 N.E.3d 633 (“[F]orfeiture of an issue is a limitation on the parties and not on this court.”).

- 25 - ¶ 97 A motion for a directed finding asserts “only that as a matter of law the evidence is

insufficient to support a finding *** of guilty.” People v. Withers, 87 Ill. 2d 224, 230, 429 N.E.2d

853, 856 (1981); see 725 ILCS 5/115-4(k) (West 2016). “The making of it requires the trial court

to consider only whether a reasonable mind could fairly conclude the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt, considering the evidence most strongly in the [State’s] favor.” Withers, 87 Ill.

2d at 230. The issue of whether a directed finding should have been entered is a question of law,

subject to de novo review. Cazacu, 373 Ill. App. 3d at 473.

¶ 98 In order to prove defendant guilty of unlawful delivery of a firearm, as charged in

this case, the State had to establish, amongst other things, defendant knew Travis was a “patient in

a mental institution” as it has been statutorily defined. See 720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(e) (West 2016).

Specifically, the State had to establish defendant knew Travis was admitted to a qualifying mental

institution for mental health treatment. Id.

¶ 99 “Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that

the fact exists.” Id. § 4-5(a). Determining “whether a person acted with knowledge may be inferred

from circumstantial evidence.” People v. White, 2016 IL App (2d) 140479, ¶ 37, 59 N.E.3d 156.

“Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact

may infer other connected facts that human experience dictates usually and reasonably follow.”

Id.

¶ 100 By the close of its case, the State had presented evidence showing defendant knew

Travis was admitted to the Behavioral Health Unit at UnityPoint, a qualifying mental institution,

from May 27 to June 3, 2016. The State presented testimony showing defendant was with Travis

in the late hours of May 26, 2016, immediately before he was taken to UnityPoint. With respect to

the circumstances of May 26, 2016, the State specifically presented testimony showing Travis was

- 26 - having an apparent mental-health crisis in a CVS parking lot while defendant was nearby. The law

enforcement officers who were at the scene testified to Travis yelling statements about the

entertainer Taylor Swift stalking him and hacking his electronic devices. The officers also testified

to having discussions with Travis’s family members. Trooper Mancha specifically testified he

suggested to “[e]veryone who was there” that Travis needed mental-health assistance and later

explained to Travis’s family, including defendant, that Travis was going to UnityPoint “because

they have a mental[ ]health facility there.” Trooper Mancha also advised Travis’s family not to

entertain Travis’s delusions. From this evidence, we find a reasonable mind could fairly conclude

defendant knew Travis’s admission at UnityPoint was “for mental health treatment.” We find a

reasonable mind could fairly conclude defendant knew Travis was a “patient in a mental

institution” as it has been statutorily defined.

¶ 101 We find defendant was not entitled to a directed finding of not guilty at the close

of the State’s case and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for such a finding.

¶ 102 C. The Finding of Guilt

¶ 103 Defendant argues the trial court erred by finding him guilty at the close of trial.

Defendant maintains he should have been found not guilty because no rational trier of fact could

have found he knew Travis was a “patient in a mental institution,” as it has been statutorily defined.

¶ 104 When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “the question

is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(Emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶ 22, 162

N.E.3d 252. The trier of fact, in this case the trial court, “remains responsible for resolving conflicts

in the testimony, weighing the evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences from the facts.”

- 27 - People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 26, 120 N.E.3d 900. “A criminal conviction will not be

reversed for insufficient evidence unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or

unsatisfactory that it justifies a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Gray, 2017

IL 120958, ¶ 35, 91 N.E.3d 876.

¶ 105 In support of his argument, defendant initially emphasizes his testimony about his

hearing difficulties, as well as his assertions he could not hear the officers in the CVS parking lot,

he was not told by anyone where Travis was being taken, he was not notified of the involuntary

commitment proceeding involving Travis, and he was never told nor inquired about the reason for

Travis being at the hospital. Defendant essentially asks this court to retry him and accept his

version of events, which we may not do. The trial court, which was in a better position to evaluate

the witnesses, made credibility determinations and rejected defendant’s version of events. The

court’s determinations find support in the record.

¶ 106 Ultimately, this court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

finds sufficient evidence to prove defendant knew Travis was a “patient in a mental institution.”

In addition to the incriminating information gleaned from the evidence presented as part of the

State’s case highlighted above, incriminating information is gleaned from defendant’s testimony.

First, defendant acknowledged hearing Travis complaining about his phone being hacked by

Taylor Swift and calling ERS. A reasonable inference, setting aside defendant’s self-serving and

questionable explanation for placing the call, is defendant called ERS believing Travis was having

a mental health crisis and needed mental health treatment. In addition, defendant acknowledged

repeatedly visiting Travis in the behavioral health unit. A reasonable inference, again setting aside

defendant’s self-serving testimony, is defendant knew Travis was receiving mental health

treatment while in the behavioral health unit.

- 28 - ¶ 107 We find a rational trier of fact could find defendant knew Travis was a “patient in

a mental institution,” as it has been statutorily defined at the close of trial, and the trial court did

not err in finding defendant guilty of the charged offense.

¶ 108 D. The Rejection of the Posttrial Claim of Ineffective Assistance

¶ 109 Defendant argues the trial court erred by rejecting his posttrial claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Defendant maintains Attorney Sullivan provided ineffective assistance by

(1) agreeing to the trial stipulations, (2) failing to present certain defenses, and (3) failing to

prepare him to testify at trial.

¶ 110 “Every defendant has a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel

under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Illinois.”

People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36, 987 N.E.2d 767. Claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel are analyzed under the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687 (1984). Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance,

a defendant must show both (1) “counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under

prevailing professional norms” and (2) “there is a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Id. (quoting

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

¶ 111 Where, as in this case, a trial court has ruled on a defendant’s claim of ineffective

assistance following an evidentiary hearing where findings of fact were made, our review is

bifurcated: we defer to the court’s findings of fact unless they are against the manifest weight of

the evidence, but we assess de novo the ultimate legal issue of whether counsel’s acts or omissions

constitute ineffective assistance. People v. Walker, 2021 IL App (4th) 190073, ¶ 29, 188 N.E.3d

1235; People v. Alfaro, 386 Ill. App. 3d 271, 312, 896 N.E.2d 1077, 1112 (2008). “A finding is

- 29 - against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if

the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) People v. Peterson, 2017 IL 120331, ¶ 39, 106 N.E.3d 944. This

deferential standard “is grounded in the reality that the [trial] court is in a superior position to

determine and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, observe the witnesses’ demeanor, and resolve

conflicts in their testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL

114197, ¶ 34, 998 N.E.2d 1212.

¶ 112 We begin with defendant’s contention Attorney Sullivan provided ineffective

assistance by agreeing to the trial stipulations. Defendant maintains Attorney Sullivan’s decision

to agree to the stipulations amounts to ineffective assistance because he objected to the stipulations

and the decision to stipulate was not a matter of trial tactics and strategy.

¶ 113 Our supreme court has held defense counsel may, with a limited exception not

applicable to this case, “validly waive a defendant’s right of confrontation” by entering into an

evidentiary stipulation “where two elements are met: (1) the defendant does not object to the

stipulation; and (2) the decision to stipulate is a matter of trial tactics and strategy.” (Emphasis

omitted.) People v. Clendenin, 238 Ill. 2d 302, 324, 939 N.E.2d 310, 323 (2010) (citing People v.

Campbell, 208 Ill. 2d 203, 217, 802 N.E.2d 1205, 1213 (2003)).

¶ 114 Defendant claims he, contrary to the finding of the trial court, objected to the

stipulations and, therefore, Attorney Sullivan should not have agreed to them. We disagree.

Initially, defendant highlights evidence favorable to his claim and asserts the court either ignored

or failed to consider his evidence. Defendant’s assertion is refuted by the record. The court made

clear it considered all of the evidence before it. Defendant also, in support of his claim, emphasizes

the evidence of his undisputed objection to the stipulations in January 2022 and suggests that

- 30 - evidence is sufficient to preclude Attorney Sullivan from agreeing to the stipulations. Defendant

fails to cite, however, any authority for his suggestion, and, moreover, we find it at odds with the

realities of the pretrial practice of law. Indeed, it is entirely reasonable to believe, as Attorney

Sullivan testified to in this case, a defendant may initially object to a stipulation and then withdraw

the objection after further consultation.

¶ 115 The trial court was presented with conflicting evidence at the hearing on the

posttrial motion as to whether defendant objected to the stipulations tendered at his trial. We cannot

say the court’s factual finding defendant did not object to the stipulations is against the manifest

weight of the evidence. Attorney Sullivan testified defendant did not object to the stipulations

when they discussed them. Additionally, defendant, despite the fact the stipulations were

repeatedly addressed in open court at trial, did not voice any objection. Based upon the evidence

presented, the opposite conclusion is not clearly evident, nor is the court’s finding unreasonable,

arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. The finding defendant did not object to the stipulations,

therefore, stands.

¶ 116 Defendant also claims, contrary to the finding of the trial court, that Attorney

Sullivan’s decision to agree to the stipulations was not a matter of trial tactics and strategy and,

therefore, he should not have agreed to the stipulations. We disagree. Initially, defendant highlights

the absence of any evidence of some of the stipulated facts and suggests the absence of this

evidence shows Attorney Sullivan’s decision to agree to the stipulations was not a matter of trial

tactics and strategy. Defendant’s suggestion, however, is a nonstarter; the stipulations were,

undisputedly, sufficient to establish the facts set forth therein, thereby obviating any need to

produce additional evidence of those facts. Defendant also, in support of his claim, asserts Attorney

Sullivan’s decision to stipulate to the fact he “gave” the firearm to Travis could not have been a

- 31 - matter of trial tactics and strategy, given the argument he raised before the court on that issue.

Defendant fails to recognize, however, that Attorney Sullivan testified his argument was intended

to simply preserve those issues raised in the pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment.

¶ 117 Attorney Sullivan testified he decided to agree to the stipulations because he

believed the facts therein were easily provable and he wanted to avoid live witness testimony

establishing some of those facts. In effect, Attorney Sullivan wanted to focus the trial on the theory

of defense which he believed would be most successful—that defendant did not know Travis’s

admission to UnityPoint was for mental health treatment. Attorney Sullivan’s decision to agree to

the stipulations was, therefore, a matter of trial tactics and strategy. See, e.g., People v. Phillips,

217 Ill. 2d 270, 285, 840 N.E.2d 1194, 1203 (2005).

¶ 118 We find, applying the analytical approach set forth by our supreme court for

stipulations, Attorney Sullivan was permitted to waive defendant’s right of confrontation by

entering into the stipulations, and the decision to do so did not amount to constitutionally deficient

performance. We further find, although only addressed by defendant in passing, an absence of

prejudice from the decision to agree to the stipulations. Attorney Sullivan testified to his belief the

facts set forth in the stipulations were easily provable. Defendant did not present any evidence

showing Attorney Sullivan’s belief was erroneous. As for the stipulation to the fact defendant

“gave” the firearm to Travis, we likewise find an absence of prejudice where, as indicated above,

the statutory language prohibiting the giving of a firearm applied equally to the return of a firearm.

We reject defendant’s contention that Attorney Sullivan provided ineffective assistance by

agreeing to the stipulations.

¶ 119 Next, we consider defendant’s contention that Attorney Sullivan provided

ineffective assistance by failing to present certain defenses. Defendant maintains Attorney

- 32 - Sullivan’s failure to present defenses based upon the advice he received from the Tazewell County

Sheriff’s Office and the failure of others to properly report Travis’s involuntary commitment to

the Illinois State Police amounts to ineffective assistance.

¶ 120 It is well established that “ ‘[t]he decision to rely on one theory of defense to the

exclusion of other theories of defense is a matter of trial strategy.’ ” People v. Hayes, 2022 IL App

(4th) 210409, ¶ 52, 217 N.E.3d 327 (quoting People v. Clark, 207 Ill. App. 3d 439, 450, 565 N.E.2d

1373, 1380 (1991)). Furthermore, as our supreme court has made clear, a reviewing court must be

“highly deferential to trial counsel on matters of trial strategy, making every effort to evaluate

counsel’s performance from his perspective at the time, rather than through the lens of hindsight.”

People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 344, 864 N.E.2d 196, 216 (2007).

¶ 121 At the hearing on the posttrial motion, Attorney Sullivan was examined at length

about the defense strategy. He indicated he considered potential defenses based upon the advice

defendant received from the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office and the failure of others to properly

report Travis’s involuntary commitment to the Illinois State Police. He ultimately decided to

forego those potential defenses for other ones. Defendant does not dispute the defenses Attorney

Sullivan pursued, although unsuccessful, were valid. On this record, we conclude Attorney

Sullivan made a reasonable strategic decision to pursue certain theories of defense to the exclusion

of others.

¶ 122 Accordingly, we find Attorney Sullivan was permitted to pursue certain theories of

defense to the exclusion of others and the decision to do so did not amount to constitutionally

deficient performance. We further find, although again only addressed by defendant in passing, an

absence of prejudice from the decision to not to pursue the additional defenses. Defendant asserts,

had Attorney Sullivan submitted the additional defenses, this “case could have ended with an

- 33 - acquittal.” This assertion is far from establishing the requisite prejudice to support a claim of

ineffective assistance. We reject defendant’s contention that Attorney Sullivan provided

ineffective assistance by failing to present certain defenses.

¶ 123 Last, we consider defendant’s contention that Attorney Sullivan provided

ineffective assistance by failing to prepare him to testify at trial. Defendant maintains Attorney

Sullivan’s failure to prepare him to testify amounts to ineffective assistance.

¶ 124 As previously stated, a defendant must show counsel’s performance was

objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms to prevail on a claim of ineffective

assistance. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36.

¶ 125 At the hearing on the posttrial motion, Attorney Sullivan testified he and defendant

discussed the defense strategy and defendant had told him a “consistent story.” Attorney Sullivan

further testified he believed defendant “could certainly repeat the story that we’ve talked about

ad nauseam a number of times.” Defendant did not dispute this testimony. The evidence, therefore,

showed Attorney Sullivan had, in fact, prepared defendant to testify and he did so by repeatedly

reviewing the story defendant would tell and discussing the defense strategy.

¶ 126 We find Attorney Sullivan prepared defendant to testify, and the manner in which

he did so did not amount to constitutionally deficient performance. In fact, defendant does not

allege what else he believes counsel should have done to prepare him to testify. We reject

defendant’s contention that Attorney Sullivan provided ineffective assistance by failing to prepare

him to testify at trial.

¶ 127 In sum, the trial court did not err by rejecting defendant’s posttrial claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶ 128 E. The Performance of the Trial Court and the State

- 34 - ¶ 129 As a final matter, we commend both the trial court and the State for their

performances in this case. The State, both below and on appeal, provided concise written argument

addressing the contested issues. The court, in turn, issued detailed written orders addressing and

resolving the contested issues. The performances of both demonstrate this case has been given

careful and thorough consideration at all stages of the proceedings.

¶ 130 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 131 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 132 Affirmed.

- 35 - People v. Reinking, 2024 IL App (4th) 230486

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, No. 19-CF- 145; the Hon. Christopher R. Doscotch, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys Michael Doubet, of Peoria, for appellant. for Appellant:

Attorneys Kevin E. Johnson, State’s Attorney, of Pekin (Patrick Delfino, for David J. Robinson, and Matthew S. Goldman, of State’s Appellee: Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

- 36 -