Background
Alfredo Soto was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 60 years for fatally shooting Martiniano Alvarez at an Aurora club in 2016. Video showed Soto shoot Alvarez four times near the club entrance; witnesses testified Alvarez was unarmed and had not threatened Soto that evening. Soto claimed self-defense, testifying that Alvarez said he was sent to kill him and reached toward his waist.
After the shooting, Soto returned home, placed his gun in the basement, removed his clothing, and called 911. The recording of that call was later overwritten before police discovered it was missing. At trial, the court declined Soto’s proposed adverse-inference instruction concerning the lost recording, though Soto testified about the call. His direct appeal failed. In postconviction proceedings, Soto argued appellate counsel should have challenged the refusal to give the instruction.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the Kane County circuit court’s second-stage dismissal of Soto’s postconviction petition. Soto did not make a substantial showing that appellate counsel was ineffective because he could not establish prejudice under Strickland.
The missing 911 recording, as Soto described it, concerned why he removed his clothing and where he placed the gun after the shooting. Those post-shooting actions did not bear directly on whether Soto faced an imminent threat or reasonably—or even unreasonably—believed deadly force was necessary when he shot Alvarez. The court also concluded that the State still could have argued that Soto’s shirt was found soaking in bleach and that he had placed the gun somewhere he did not normally keep it, because the alleged contents of the call did not contradict those facts.
Key Takeaways
- Ineffective-assistance claims against appellate counsel require a reasonable probability that the omitted issue would have changed the appeal’s result.
- Evidence explaining post-shooting conduct did not materially support Soto’s self-defense or imperfect-self-defense theories.
- An adverse inference concerning the lost 911 call would not have undermined the substantial evidence that Alvarez posed no imminent threat.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the prejudice requirement in Illinois postconviction cases alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Even where evidence was not preserved, a petitioner must show that the omitted appellate issue had a realistic prospect of changing the result.
This Rule 23 order is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).