Conviction stands in Marseilles drive-by shooting

An Ottawa man will resume serving 12 years for a Marseilles drive-by shooting in which one person was injured after failing to argue for a new trial Thursday.

Esteban M. Avila, 30, appeared in La Salle County Circuit Court for a hearing on post-conviction relief for his 2018 conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm. He was convicted of firing a 9-mm pistol into a residence in the 300 block of Chicago Street on New Year’s Eve in 2017.

Avila struck out at trial and then with an appeals court, but he argued Thursday that he had ineffective legal counsel at his trial.

Chicago attorney John Heiderscheidt argued that Avila’s then-lawyer, the late Fred Morelli, bungled the case. Specifically, Morelli requested a bench trial instead of trial by jury, stipulated to evidence that might have been disputed and was alerted to a potential alibi defense “and chose not to investigate it.”

Heiderscheidt acknowledged that Morelli had enjoyed a long and distinguished career but this didn’t preclude mistakes.

In response, Assistant La Salle County State’s Attorney Matt Kidder said Avila had an obligation not merely to spotlight Morelli’s reputed mistakes but to show there would have been a different outcome had Morelli done things differently.

“It’s not sufficient enough to say [Morelli] didn’t do X or didn’t do Y, but if he had done these things there was a likelihood of success and would have obtained a certain result,” Kidder said. “And he’s not done that.”

Chief Judge H. Chris Ryan Jr. agreed that Avila’s arguments came up short.

And although the evidence against Avila was largely circumstantial, he had been unable at trial to overcome a tight timeline – the shots were fired less than a half-hour after Avila had been engaged in a fight – and the fact shell casings were recovered from his vehicle. An appeals court upheld Avila’s conviction in 2021.

“Mr. Avila has 30 days from the date of the trial court’s ruling to file an appeal,” Heiderscheidt said. “Defendants are given that amount of time because appealing a negative outcome at the trial court carries many important considerations.

“It is premature to say what will happen next in this case. The trial court’s ruling is very fresh. I believe a good faith basis for an appeal exists if Mr. Avila seeks appellate review.”