3. On April 16, 2001, Chester appeared incourt pro se and pled not guilty to the

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: RENE HERNANDEZ, Attorney-Respondent, Attorney No Commission No PR ATTORNEY-RESPONDENT'S COMMISSION ORDERED AMENDED ANSWER TO ADMINISTRATOR'S COMPLAINT NOW COMES, Rene Hernandez, Attorney-Respondent, and brings forth his Commission Ordered Amended Answer to the Complaint ofthe Administrator ofthe Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, and states as follows: 1. On April 6, 2001, the State's Attorney for Winnebago County charged Courtney A. Chester ("Chester") with the offense of battery, allegedly occurring on March 29, 2001, a misdemeanor in violation of720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(2) ofthe Illinois Compiled Statutes. The clerk of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court for Winnebago County docketed the case as People v. Chester, case number 2001-CM Upon information and belief, Attorney-Respondent admits Paragraph 1 of 2. In March and April of2001, Chester was 17 years old. Upon information and belief, Attorney-Respondent admits Paragraph 2 of 3. On April 16, 2001, Chester appeared incourt pro se and pled not guilty to the charge against her in case number 2001-CM Upon information and belief, Attorney-Respondent admits Paragraph 3 of

2 4. On June 13, 2001, Chester appeared in courtpro se, and the judge continued case number CM to August 30,2001, a date after Chester's 18th birthday. Upon information and belief, Attorney-Respondent admits Paragraph 4 of 5. On August 30, 2001, Chester appeared pro se in court before the Honorable Brian Shore and pled guilty to, and was found guilty of, the battery charge. At that time, Judge Shore, pursuant to the conviction for the battery offense, entered an order sentencing Chester to conditional discharge for a period of 12 months. Upon information and belief, Attorney-Respondent denies Judge Shore was the sentencingjudge ofrecord and further avers that Judge Angus Moore was the sentencingjudge. Attorney-Respondent admits to all remaining statements in Paragraph 5 of 6. On or about February 24, 2017, Chester applied to become a student in the nursing program at Rasmussen College. As part of her application, Chester consented to an independent background check. That background check identified Chester's 2001 criminal conviction, and she was denied admission to the nursing program. Upon information and belief, Attorney-Respondent admits Paragraph 6 of 7. On or about March I, 2017, Respondent and Chester agreed that Respondent would represent Chester in connection with her 2001 criminal conviction for battery. Respondent and Chester agreed, and Chester did pay Respondent $750 to represent her in the matter. Chester told Respondent that she had been 18 years old at the time she pled guilty to the battery charge in At that time, Respondent knew that Chester's conviction was not eligible for expungement under 20 ILCS 2630/5.2, and so he agreed to request that a judge vacate her conviction.

3 Attorney-Respondent admits Chester agreed to hire Attorney Hernandez on the date stated for the fee of $750.00, and that Chester did not meet the requirements for statutory expungement. Attorney-Respondent denies Chester told Respondent she was 18 at that time she pled guilty to battery charge and that he would ask the court to vacate her conviction under 20 ILCS 2630/ Sometime between March 1, 2017 and May 17, 2017, Respondent spoke with Winnebago County Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Lesner ("Lesner") and asked Lesner whether he would consider agreeing to a motion to vacate Chester's conviction in case number 2001-CM At no point in that conversation did Respondent tell Lesner that Chester had been 18 years old at the time of her conviction or that her conviction could not be expunged. At no time before May 17, 2017 did Lesner tell Respondent that he would give favorable consideration to a motion to vacate the conviction. Attorney-Respondent admits to conversation between Respondent and Lesner, and that Lesner did not state he would give favorable consideration to motion to vacate conviction. 9. On May 17, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to vacate Chester's guilty plea and conviction in case number 2001-CM In the motion, Respondent made the statement that "[Chester] was 17 years of age at the time of charging and sentencing." Respondent also made the statement that because "[Chester] was only 17 at the time of the plea and conviction her plea and conviction should be properly voided." Attorney-Respondent admits said motion was filed and that the motion speaks for itself.

4 10. Respondent's statements in the motion to vacate that Chester was only 17 years old at the time of her conviction were false because she was then 18 years old. Attorney-Respondent admits statements in the motion to vacate that Chester was also 17 at the time of her convict was incorrect. 11. Respondent knew when he signed and filed the motion that the statements in paragraph 9 of this complaint were false because he knew that Chester had been 18 years old when she pled guilty to the battery charge and was sentenced. Attorney-Respondent admits that at the time of filing, the previous prepared motion, he knew that Chester had been 18 years old at the time she pled guilty and was sentenced. 12. Respondent sent a copy of the motion to vacate to Lesner and included a cover letter that repeated the statement that Chester had been 17 years old at the time of her battery conviction. Attorney-Respondent admits sending a letter to Lesner. Attorney-Respondent denies said letter stated that Chester was 17 years old at the time ofher battery conviction. 13. Respondent's statement in the letter to Lesner that Chester was only 17 years old at the time of her conviction was false because she was then 18 years old. Attorney-Respondent admitssending a letterto Lesner. Attorney-Respondent denies said letterstated that Chesterwas 17 years old at the time of her battery conviction ratherthat Chester was 17 at the time ofarrest.

5 14. Respondent knew when he made this statement that it was false because he knew that Chester was 18 years old when she pled guilty and was sentenced to conditional discharge. Attorney-Respondent denies paragraph 14 ofthe 15. Respondent appeared in court before Judge Shore in connection with the motion to vacate on May 23, 2017, and Judge Shore continued the matter until June 27, Attorney-Respondent admits paragraph 15 of 16. Respondent and Lesner appeared in court before Judge Shore on June 27, 2017 in case number 2001-CM When Judge Shore (referred to as "THE COURT") called the case, he questioned Respondent about the motion to vacate: THE COURT: Okay. The basis ofthe motion was the birthdate, but that's not an issue anymore, is it? RESPONDENT: Well, she was 17. LESNER: She was 17. THE COURT: Not at the time ofthe plea? RESPONDENT: Yeah. I don't know. I've still - - Attorney-Respondent admits paragraph 16 of 17. At the June 27, 2017 hearing, Judge Shore also questioned Respondent regarding his statement in the motion to vacate that Chester was 17 years old when she pled guilty to battery: THE COURT: Well, but you pled that she was 17 at the time she pled. RESPONDENT: That's what I believe when I wrote the motion, but subsequently I determined she was, in fact, over that age but

6 *** THE COURT: You did not research the pleading? RESPONDENT: I did not research the date. I was researching other issues because that was my first option. Attorney-Respondent admits paragraph 17 of 18. The statements Respondent made in open court relating to Chester's age on June 27, 2017, as alleged in paragraphs 16 and 17 ofthis complaint, were false. Respondent knew that the statements were false because he knew that Chester had been 18 years old when she pled guilty and was sentenced. Attorney-Respondent denies the statements Attorney-Respondent made in open court, as detailed in paragraphs 16 and 17, were false. Attorney Respondent in further answer to paragraph 18 adopts his previous answers to paragraph 16 and 17 as if stated herein. 19. In denying the motion on June 27, 2017, Judge Shore admonished Respondent for filing a "blatantly false allegation" that would have been "simplyverifiable." Attorney-Respondent admits paragraph 19 of misconduct: 20. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following a. bringing a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, when there is no basis for doing so that is not frivolous, and without a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law by filing a motion to vacate Chester's battery conviction when he knew that she had pled guilty and was sentenced when she was 18 years old, in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); Attorney-Respondent denies paragraph 20 a. of the

7 b. Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, by appearing in court on June 27, 2017 and stating that he did not knowthat Chester was 18 years old when she pled guilty and was sentenced and that he had not researched the issue ofher age, in violation ofrule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); Attorney-Respondent admits he did not timely correct erroneous statement that Chester was 17 years old when she pled guilty and was sentenced. c. Knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law toa third person, byconduct including his representation to Lesner that Chester was 17 years old when she was convicted of battery and sentenced, inviolation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and Attorney-Respondent denies paragraph 20 c. of the d. Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by conduct including filing a motion that falsely stated thatchester was 17 years old when she pled guilty and was sentenced, and then stating in opencourtthat he did not know that she was, in fact, 18 years old at the time of Chester's plea and sentencing, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). Attorney-Respondent further avers the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of sanctionable misconduct.

8 WHEREFORE, Attorney-Respondent Rene Hernandez prays this Honorable Tribunal finds the conduct alleged does not rise to the level ofsanctionable misconduct. Respectfully submitted, Rene Hernandez Attorney-Respond 1625 East State Rockford, Illinois (815) ^ \