Background
Rodolfo Salazar was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual-assault offenses involving a child and child pornography, and received an 85-year prison sentence. The evidence included videos recovered from a Samsung phone, testimony from the victim, and Salazar’s own trial testimony acknowledging sexual activity and that he had recorded it. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Salazar later filed a postconviction petition alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an expert concerning the video evidence and for not objecting to prosecutorial comments. He also alleged that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. At the second stage, the State and circuit court addressed only the two trial-counsel claims; the court dismissed the petition in full.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the trial-counsel claims. Postconviction counsel reasonably declined to pursue an expert because Salazar’s own testimony and the other trial evidence made an expert’s testimony about video quality or dates unable to establish prejudice. The court also rejected the argument that counsel had to recast the prosecutorial-misconduct claim as an appellate-counsel claim, concluding the State had waived procedural forfeiture and the challenged closing comments did not prejudice Salazar.
But the court held that Salazar did not receive reasonable postconviction assistance on his separately pleaded ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. Neither the State’s dismissal motion nor the circuit court’s ruling actually addressed that claim, and appointed counsel did not alert the court to the omission despite certifying that the petition adequately presented it. The court reversed and remanded for appointment of new counsel and further second-stage proceedings limited to that claim, without deciding its merits.
Key Takeaways
- Postconviction counsel need not support or pursue a frivolous claim, including one defeated by the defendant’s own inculpatory trial testimony.
- A Rule 651(c) certificate does not excuse counsel from ensuring that each claim counsel elects to present is actually brought to the circuit court’s attention.
- An appellate court will not decide the merits of a postconviction claim the circuit court never considered at the second stage.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between a reasonable strategic choice not to develop meritless claims and an unreasonable failure to ensure adjudication of a claim already pleaded. It also underscores that a blanket dismissal order cannot substitute for actual consideration of a postconviction claim omitted from the parties’ arguments and the trial court’s ruling.