People v. Mahomes ( 2021 )

Digitally signed by
Reporter of
Decisions
Reason: I attest to
Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2021.04.14
17:03:43 -05'00'
People v. Mahomes, 2020 IL App (1st) 170895
Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Caption QUOVADAS MAHOMES, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No. First District, Fourth Division
No. 1-17-0895
Filed September 24, 2020
Rehearing denied November 20, 2020
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-CR-4269; the
Review Hon. James B. Linn, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Counsel on James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Kieran M. Wiberg, of State
Appeal Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg,
Clare Wesolik Connolly, and Jennifer Cooper, Assistant State’s
Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Panel JUSTICE HALL delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Reyes concurred in the judgment
and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Following a bench trial, defendant Quovadas Mahomes was convicted of first degree
murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated discharge of a firearm and was
sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 44 years’ imprisonment in the Department of
Corrections. Defendant now appeals.
¶2 On appeal, defendant contends that the de facto life sentence imposed for a crime he
committed as a 17-year-old juvenile violates the eighth amendment and must be vacated. He
further contends that the trial court did not consider all of the Miller factors before finding him
“incorrigible” and sentencing him to a de facto life sentence. For the reasons that follow, we
vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged with multiple counts of first degree murder in connection with the
shooting death of Devin Common. He was also charged with attempted first degree murder of
Phillip Durham, Selassie Blandon, and Timothy Harris; aggravated battery with a firearm of
Durham and Blandon; and aggravated discharge of a firearm. All of the charges stemmed from
a January 29, 2013, shooting on the 7400 block of South Champlain Avenue in Chicago.
¶5 The State presented evidence at trial that Blandon and Durham were walking with Common
near 75th Street and Champlain Avenue after visiting a neighborhood store at approximately
noon. As they approached the intersection, they saw defendant cross 75th Street and continue
north on Champlain Avenue. Common, Blandon, and Durham turned onto Champlain Avenue
and walked towards Durham’s apartment on 74th Street and Champlain Avenue. At the time,
defendant was 10 to 20 feet in front of them. Defendant did not say anything to them, and they
did not say anything to defendant. When they were halfway down the block, Harris, who was
walking south on Champlain Avenue, approached and asked Durham for a “light.” Durham
knew Harris, and the group stopped so that Durham could light Harris’s cigarette. As they
stood there, three shots were fired from the north. Blandon looked and saw defendant facing
them and firing a gun towards the group. Durham and Harris immediately fell to the ground,
while Blandon subsequently ran into a nearby gangway and returned to the store, seeking help.
Blandon, Durham, and Common were all struck by gunshots. Common subsequently died from
his injuries.
¶6 Harris testified that after approximately eight shots were fired, he saw defendant stand over
Durham pointing the gun, but no additional shots were fired. Defendant then ran south on
Champlain Avenue, with Harris chasing him while also trying to get to his phone. Harris saw
an unmarked police car near the corner of 75th Street and Champlain Avenue and told the
officers that defendant had just shot several people. He pointed the officers in the direction that
defendant ran. Those officers began pursuing defendant.
¶7 Meanwhile, someone from the store had also flagged down a police car and reported the
shooting. Defendant was arrested near 76th Street and Champlain Avenue, and was identified
in showups by Blandon and Harris. A gunshot residue test (GSR) on defendant’s hand was
positive, and a gun was recovered from the area where defendant ran. The recovered gun
matched the shell casings recovered from the scene of the shooting.
-2-
¶8 Defendant testified that he was a member of the “9-0” section of the Gangster Disciples
(GD). He knew Durham and stated that Durham was a member of the Mickey Cobras, who
were “at war” with the GDs. Defendant was also familiar with Blandon and indicated that he
was also a member of a rival gang. Defendant testified about an incident that occurred a week
prior in which Durham pulled up in a car with other gang members and pointed a gun at
defendant, although no shots were fired.
¶9 Defendant further testified that he went to the area of 75th Street and Champlain Avenue
with two other GDs to sell two bags of drugs to someone who had requested them. His
companions dropped him off, so that he could make the sale, and drove away. After making
the sale, defendant was waiting for his companions to return when he saw Durham, Blandon,
and Common walking towards him. Defendant stated that he thought they were following him,
so he started walking away from the three. When Harris stopped near the group, defendant
turned around and started shooting because he was afraid. Defendant then ran away before
being arrested. He admitted that he lied to police about having a gun and denied everything
else.
¶ 10 The trial court rejected defendant’s claim of self-defense and found him guilty of knowing
first degree murder, two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm, and one count of
aggravated discharge with a firearm. The court expressed uncertainty that defendant intended
to kill and acquitted defendant of the attempted murder charges. Defendant’s motion for a new
trial was denied and the matter was set for sentencing.
¶ 11 At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s presentence investigation (PSI) report was
presented, which included multiple traumatic incidents in defendant’s life, and defense counsel
presented evidence in mitigation. Additionally, defendant’s mother indicated that she
encouraged defendant to join a gang.
¶ 12 Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court noted a number of things that it would consider
related to juvenile offenders. The court noted defendant’s young age and declined to impose
the discretionary firearm enhancement to defendant’s sentence. The court further noted that it
was making a “cautious effort” not to impose a de facto natural life sentence. On January 12,
2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to a 30-year term of imprisonment for first degree
murder. Finding that the murder was a triggering offense, the court sentenced defendant to
consecutive seven-year terms for aggravated battery and a concurrent five-year term for
aggravated discharge, for a total of 44 years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s motion to reconsider
his sentence was denied, and this timely appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, defendant makes two arguments in support of his contention that his sentence
should be reversed. He contends that (1) his 44-year sentence was a de facto natural life
sentence that violates the eighth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. VIII) and should be reversed
and (2) the trial court failed to consider all of the relevant aspects of youth prior to sentencing
him and should be reversed. Defendant cites our supreme court’s holding in People v. Buffer,
2019 IL 122327, in support of his contentions that his sentence is unconstitutional. He also
cites the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)
and its progeny in support of his contention that none but the “rarest of youth offenders” should
be sentenced to natural life sentences. Defendant contends that his sentence can only be
affirmed if the trial court properly found him to be one of the few juveniles whose crime
-3-
demonstrated irreparable corruption, and that the record clearly indicates that the trial court
did not intend to sentence him to a de facto life sentence.
¶ 15 In the alternative, defendant contends that his sentence should be reversed because the
record does not indicate that the trial court considered all of the relevant aspects of his youth
or reached the conclusion that he was irretrievably depraved prior to imposing a de facto life
sentence.
¶ 16 The State responds that defendant’s sentence should be affirmed because the trial court
considered defendant’s youth and attendant characteristics, as well as his rehabilitative
potential, before imposing an aggregate discretionary 44-year sentence.
¶ 17 Because defendant’s arguments on appeal are intertwined, we will consider them together.
¶ 18 The eighth amendment prohibits, inter alia, the imposition of cruel and unusual
punishment, which includes excessive sanctions. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005).
In Miller, the Supreme Court held that a sentence of “mandatory life without parole for those
under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes” is a violation of this prohibition. Miller, 567
U.S. at 465. In People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 40, our supreme court expanded Miller
protection to “discretionary sentences of life without parole for juvenile defendants.”
¶ 19 In Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 27, our supreme court clarified what constituted a life
sentence for a juvenile offender. The Buffer court found that, for a juvenile, a de facto life
sentence was a sentence over 40 years. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶¶ 40-41.
¶ 20 In the present case, defendant was a 17-year-old juvenile at the time he committed the
offenses and received a 44-year term of imprisonment, which is a de facto life sentence under
Buffer. As defendant was a juvenile when the offense was committed, there is no question that
the provisions of Miller apply retroactively to him (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___,
___, 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016)) and that he is entitled to a sentencing hearing and sentence
which take the Miller factors into account. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46.
¶ 21 Our supreme court has found that, under Miller, a juvenile defendant, such as defendant,
may be sentenced to a de facto life sentence “only if the trial court determines that the
defendant’s conduct showed irretrievable depravity, permanent incorrigibility, or irreparable
corruption beyond the possibility of rehabilitation.” Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46.
¶ 22 Our supreme court has further found that, before sentencing a juvenile to a de facto life
sentence, the trial court must consider the defendant’s youth and its attendant characteristics,
which include
“(1) the juvenile defendant’s chronological age at the time of the offense and any
evidence of his particular immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and
consequences; (2) the juvenile defendant’s family and home environment; (3) the
juvenile defendant’s degree of participation in the homicide and any evidence of
familial or peer pressures that may have affected him; (4) the juvenile defendant’s
incompetence, including his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors and his
incapacity to assist his own attorneys; and (5) the juvenile defendant’s prospects for
rehabilitation.” Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46.
¶ 23 In the case at bar, the record reveals that the trial court spent a considerable amount of time
and deliberation to be sure that it was rendering the proper sentence for a juvenile defendant
and to avoid giving defendant a de facto life sentence. The court noted that the law had changed
such that the firearm enhancement was no longer mandatory for a juvenile defendant, and it
-4-
declined to apply the enhancement to defendant’s sentence. The court commented on
defendant’s age and his lengthy juvenile history and noted that defendant had not previously
been amenable to rehabilitation “at that time.” However, we must disagree with the State that
these comments by the trial court amounted to a full consideration of the Miller factors.
Additionally, the Buffer case was not decided until 2019, more than two years after defendant
was sentenced, which capped a juvenile defendant’s sentence to 40 years unless the sentencing
court specifically finds that such defendant is beyond rehabilitation. See Buffer, 2019 IL
122327, ¶ 21. This change in the law for sentencing of juvenile defendants since defendant’s
sentencing hearing necessitates that defendant receive a new sentencing hearing.
¶ 24 Accordingly, we must conclude that defendant’s 44-year sentence violates the eighth
amendment, and we vacate that sentence as unconstitutional.
¶ 25 We therefore remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing, and defendant shall be
entitled on remand to be sentenced under the scheme prescribed by section 5-4.5-105 of the
Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105 (West 2016)). See Buffer, 2019 IL
1122327, ¶ 47.
¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 27 For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed,
defendant’s sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing consistent with
this decision.
¶ 28 Affirmed and remanded with directions.
-5-