People v. Stewart ( 2007 )

Sixth Division
November 2, 2007
No. 1-05-3868
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from
) the Circuit Court
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) of Cook County
)
v. ) 04 CR 654
)
ORLANDO STEWART, )
) Honorable
Defendant-Appellant. ) Thomas R. Sumner,
) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a bench trial, defendant, Orlando Stewart, was found guilty of residential
burglary and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the
State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erred in allowing
evidence of his other crimes; and (3) his sentence is excessive.
At defendant’s trial, James and Leslie Sykes testified that they live in apartment 603 at 344
West 28th Place in Chicago. James left the apartment on the afternoon of November 15, 2002,
and Leslie left the apartment a couple of hours later. At that time, the apartment was in good
condition and Leslie did not give anyone permission to enter it while she was gone. When Leslie
returned home later that night, the TV and VCR were missing and the bed was in disarray. Both
James and Leslie testified that they did not see defendant in their apartment nor did they see him
remove anything from it. Leslie acknowledged that she did not remember locking the door when
she left the apartment.
Sergeant Riga testified that on December 22, 2003, he received a flash message that a
burglary had occurred and that the offender was a black male who was 6 feet tall and weighed
1-05-3868
approximately 200 pounds. Sergeant Riga was subsequently directed to the location of a person
matching that description. The officer approached this person, whom he identified in court as
defendant, and announced that he was a police officer. Defendant then turned around and ran into
a nearby building located at 2430 South State Street.
Officer Elizabeth Mishler was working security at 2430 South State Street at the relevant
time and began to search that building after receiving a flash message describing defendant.
Officer Mishler found another officer detaining defendant inside the building and she accompanied
that officer to the police station, where defendant was processed and placed in an interview room.
Detective William O’Bren testified that he spoke to defendant at the police station.
Defendant was speaking rapidly and Detective O’Bren asked him if he was a “hype.” Defendant
replied, “no. I’m just a drunk. I break in the houses, stay warm, and eat the food.” Detective
O’Bren acknowledged that he did not question defendant further or ask him which houses he had
broken into.
Detective Eduardo Agron testified that he and his partner, Detective Bryant, spoke with
defendant at the police station on December 22, 2003. During that conversation, defendant
related that he would “get into houses” on a daily basis to take things that he could quickly sell.
Defendant did not remember the addresses or places that he went through, but told Detective
Agron that he would be willing to point them out to the police. Detective Agron and his partner
then left the police station with defendant in order to locate the addresses that defendant was
referring to. According to Detective Agron, defendant pointed to the building located at 344
West 28th Place and stated that between October and November of 2002, he had entered that
2
1-05-3868
building through a side window and made his way to an upper floor. Defendant then walked
through the hallway twisting doorknobs to see if any of the doors had been left open and
eventually entered one of the apartments. Defendant initially said that he took food items and
then said that he took a TV and a VCR. Detective Agron acknowledged that he did not ask
defendant for a specific apartment number and that he did not recover a TV or a VCR from
defendant.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and defendant testified on
his own behalf. According to defendant, he did not tell Detective Agron that he entered 344 West
28th Place or that he took any items from an apartment inside that building. Rather, defendant
testified that he showed the detective some abandoned buildings in which he had been living.
Detective Agron tried to indicate to defendant that maybe he had been in other buildings, but
defendant told the detective that he had not. Defendant further testified that he did not take a TV
or a VCR from apartment 603 at 344 West 28th Place.
The State then admitted certified copies of defendant’s prior convictions for possession of
a stolen motor vehicle and theft. Following closing arguments, the trial court found defendant
guilty of residential burglary. In announcing its decision, the court stated that defendant’s
testimony “[did not] make sense at all” and had to be considered in light of his prior felony
convictions, and that it found Detective Agron’s testimony regarding defendant’s statements to
police to be more credible. The court also noted that although defendant did not admit to being in
the particular apartment that was burglarized, he did admit that he was in that building and that he
committed a burglary during the “critical period” between November and December of 2002.
3
1-05-3868
At the sentencing hearing, the State presented testimony that defendant attempted to
break into a home on December 22, 2003, and was subsequently arrested and picked out of a
lineup. The State also recounted defendant’s prior convictions for armed robbery, robbery,
battery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, theft, criminal trespass to state property, and
residential burglary. The State informed the court that defendant was not only Class X
mandatory, but was also eligible for extended-term sentencing. Defense counsel pointed out that
defendant was currently serving a 12-year sentence for the residential burglary that occurred on
December 22, 2003, and asked the court for the same sentence in the current case. The trial court
sentenced defendant as a Class X offender to the maximum term of 30 years’ imprisonment. This
appeal followed.
Defendant first contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
was guilty of residential burglary. Specifically, defendant asserts that the evidence failed to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered or took any items from the Sykes’ apartment.
We agree.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is
whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v.
Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 278 (2004). Although the trier of fact is responsible for assessing
the credibility of the witnesses and weighing the testimony, the trial court’s determination is not
conclusive. People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 542 (1999). Rather, we will reverse a conviction
where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable
4
1-05-3868
doubt of defendant’s guilt. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d at 542.
“[P]roof of an offense requires proof of two concepts: first, that a crime occurred, or the
corpus delicti, and second, that it was committed by the person charged.” People v. Cloutier,
156 Ill. 2d 483, 503 (1993). A person commits residential burglary when he “knowingly and
without authority enters or knowingly and without authority remains within the dwelling place of
another, or any part thereof, with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft.” 720 ILCS 5/19-
3 (West 2004). Therefore, in this case, the State was required to prove that defendant knowingly
and without authority entered the Sykes’ apartment with the intent to commit a theft. See People
v. Robinson, 125 Ill. App. 3d 1077, 1080 (2004).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence adduced at trial established
that James and Leslie Sykes left their apartment in good condition on the afternoon of November
15, 2002, and that their TV and VCR were missing when Leslie returned home later that night.
The evidence also established that more than one year later, on December 22, 2003, defendant
pointed out the same residential building in which the Sykes lived to a detective and told him that
between October and November of 2002, he entered that building through a side window and
made his way to an upper floor. Defendant told the detective that he then walked through the
hallway looking for open doors and eventually entered an apartment from which he took a TV
and a VCR. Although defendant denied making these statements to police and testified that he
was showing the detective buildings in which he had lived, the trial court did not believe
defendant’s testimony and instead found Detective Agron’s version of events more credible.
When examining the evidence, it is our duty to give due consideration to the fact that the
5
1-05-3868
trier of fact had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. See Smith, 185 Ill. 2d at 541. If,
however, after such consideration, we are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to
prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse the conviction. See Smith,
185 Ill. 2d at 541. For the reasons that follow, we find this to be such a case.
We begin by noting that the evidence in this case connecting defendant to the residential
burglary was not particularly strong. The State’s case was based almost entirely upon oral
statements that defendant made to Detective Agron when he was picked up for a burglary
unrelated to the one at issue in this case. Those statements, however, were made more than one
year after the Sykes discovered that their TV and VCR were missing and did not establish that
defendant entered the Sykes’ apartment and removed those items. Rather, defendant’s statements
only established that during a two-month period he entered the multi-unit residential building in
which the Sykes lived and removed a TV and a VCR from an apartment. Defendant did not tell
the detective which apartment he entered or that he entered the Sykes’ apartment. Moreover,
defendant’s oral statements were not reduced to writing and Detective Bryant, who along with
Detective Agron witnessed those statements, was not called to testify. Under these
circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s vague reference to entering the building located at
344 West 28th Place during a two-month period of time is insufficient to establish that he
committed the residential burglary with which he was charged. Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d at 503.
Further, defendant’s statements that he took food and then that he took a TV and a VCR from an
apartment in that building do not make his admission any more specific so as to support a
conviction for this residential burglary.
6
1-05-3868
In addition to the weaknesses in defendant’s oral admission, there were no fingerprints or
eyewitness testimony placing defendant inside the Sykes’ apartment or near their apartment
building on November 15, 2002. See People v. King, 135 Ill. App. 3d 152 (1985) (reversing
defendant’s residential burglary conviction where no evidence placed him inside the victim’s home
and there was a “great deal of time,” approximately 13 to 14 hours, in which the residential
burglary could have occurred). There were also no witnesses who saw the Sykes’ TV and VCR
being stolen, and those items were never found in defendant’s possession nor were they recovered
by police.
While we recognize that the crime of burglary is often proved by circumstantial evidence
(People v. Schuld, 191 Ill. App. 3d 809, 812 (1989)), this court has generally sustained
convictions for residential burglary based upon greater evidence than is found in the present case.
See, e.g., Schuld, 191 Ill. App. 3d at 812-13 (defendant found guilty of residential burglary where
police testified that defendant was apprehended coming out of the victim’s apartment carrying a
paper bag containing proceeds from the robbery); People v. Johnson, 82 Ill. App. 3d 338, 343
(1980) (burglary conviction affirmed based on evidence showing that defendant told eyewitnesses
that he had been to the floor on which the victim lived, defendant was seen with two speakers
belonging to the victim, he participated in the sale of the stolen property, and that property was
subsequently identified as belonging to the victim); People v. McIntyre, 218 Ill. App. 3d 479
(1991) (defendant proved guilty of residential burglary beyond a reasonable doubt where two men
were seen in the victim’s backyard, they were in close proximity to a grill that had been removed
from the victim’s porch, and defendant was identified as the driver of a vehicle that sped away);
7
1-05-3868
People v. Ramey, 240 Ill. App. 3d 456, 461 (1992) (residential burglary conviction upheld where
defendant gave a signed confession that he entered the victim’s apartment and removed jewelry
and other items and that confession was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses).
Unlike the cases cited above, here defendant’s oral admission to entering a multi-unit
residential building during the months of either November or December 2002 and removing a TV
and a VCR from an apartment, without identifying the apartment where the victims lived, does
not in our opinion amount to sufficient evidence to establish that defendant entered the Sykes’
apartment with the intent to commit a theft. We therefore conclude that the evidence presented at
trial was so unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt. Accordingly,
defendant’s conviction for residential burglary is reversed.
Finally, because we are reversing defendant’s conviction for residential burglary, we need
not consider the other issues he raises on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendant was not proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
McNULTY and O’MALLEY, JJ., concur.
8