People v. Brown ( 2020 )

2020 IL App (1st) 171793-UNo. 1-17-1793
Order filed June 16, 2020
Second Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 14 CR 6405
)
LARRY BROWN, ) Honorable
) Michele M. Pitman,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: When defendant acquiesced to the admission of certain evidence, he could not
argue on appeal that its admission violated his right to confrontation. Defendant’s
conviction for unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon is vacated
pursuant to the one-act, one-crime rule, and the cause is remanded for a preliminary
inquiry into defendant’s pro se posttrial allegation of ineffective assistance of
counsel.
¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Larry Brown was found guilty of eight counts of
aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and one count of unlawful use or possession of a
No. 1-17-1793
weapon by a felon (UUWF). The trial court merged the AUUW counts into a single count of the
Class 2 offense of AUUW (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (3)(a-5), (d)(3) (West Supp. 2013)) and
sentenced defendant as a Class X offender to 10 years in prison. The court imposed a concurrent
10-year sentence for UUWF (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2012)). On appeal, defendant contends
that the State violated his right to confrontation by using a certified letter from the Illinois State
Police to establish that he did not have a valid Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card or a
concealed carry license. He further contends that his conviction for UUWF must be vacated
pursuant to the one-act, one-crime rule because it is based upon on the same physical act as his
conviction for AUUW. Defendant finally contends that the cause should be remanded for a
preliminary inquiry pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), because the trial court
failed to inquire into his posttrial pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the
trial court’s guilty findings, vacate defendant’s sentence for UUWF, and remand to the trial court
for a preliminary Krankel inquiry.
¶3 Following his February 6, 2014 arrest, defendant was charged with one count of armed
violence, eight counts of AUUW, one count of UUWF, and one count of aggravated fleeing or
attempting to elude a peace officer. Relevant to this appeal, count II for AUUW alleged that
defendant knowingly carried on or about his person at a time when he was not on his land or in his
abode, legal dwelling or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another
person as an invitee with that person’s permission, an uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible
firearm and had not been issued a concealed carry license at the time of the offense. Count II
further alleged that the State sought to sentence defendant as a “Class 2 offender” because he had
-2-
No. 1-17-1793
previously been convicted of a felony. Count X for UUWF alleged that defendant knowingly
possessed on or about his person a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony.
¶4 Prior to trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress defendant’s statements to the police,
which the trial court denied after a hearing. The matter then proceeded to a bench trial.
¶5 Detective John Gipson of the Chicago Heights police department testified that he was on
patrol with Detective Anthony Bruno around 9:16 p.m. on February 6, 2013. Detectives Meder
and Hahn followed in another vehicle. 1 After Gipson observed a seatbelt violation, the officers
curbed a vehicle at 16th Place and Wilson Avenue. Gipson identified defendant in court as the
driver. As Gipson approached the vehicle, he heard Hahn and defendant speaking and smelled
“[f]resh cannabis.” When Hahn asked defendant if there were drugs in the vehicle, defendant drove
away. Defendant was apprehended and taken to a police station. After being given his Miranda
rights, defendant stated that he fled because a firearm was under the passenger seat, and he threw
the firearm and cannabis from the vehicle. Gipson identified photographs of a firearm and testified
that defendant signed them to identify the firearm as the one thrown from the vehicle.
¶6 Hahn testified that he smelled cannabis as he approached the vehicle, so he asked defendant
whether there was contraband inside. Defendant replied that he had just smoked a “blunt.” When
Hahn asked defendant to exit the vehicle, he drove away. Hahn pursued defendant until defendant
stopped and exited his vehicle. Hahn placed him in handcuffs. As he was being handcuffed,
defendant said he fled because “he had thrown some weed.” During a subsequent search of the
chase route, Hahn recovered and photographed a loaded black semiautomatic pistol in a holster.
1
The transcript does not contain the given names of Detectives Meder and Hahn.
-3-
No. 1-17-1793
¶7 The State submitted a certified copy of defendant’s conviction for manufacture and
delivery of cannabis in case number 10 C6 60693-01, which was entered into evidence without
objection. The State then submitted a certification from the Illinois State Police stating that as of
October 15, 2015, defendant had not been issued either a FOID card or a concealed carry license.
The court asked whether trial counsel objected, and counsel answered, “No objection.” The court
then entered the certification into evidence.
¶8 Defendant testified that on February 6, 2014, he stopped his vehicle at a stop sign and saw
two squad cars pass. He was wearing a seatbelt and did not have marijuana. As he continued
driving, the squad cars turned and followed him. He did not realize he was “being pulled over”
because the sirens and lights were not activated. He proceeded through two more stop signs,
stopping at each one. At the third stop sign, the squad cars’ lights activated. Defendant did not hear
the sirens because he was wearing “ear plugs” and listening to music. After defendant stopped,
Hahn approached the vehicle, told him to exit, and punched him. Defendant exited the vehicle,
was handcuffed, and was taken to a police station.
¶9 At the police station, defendant was in the “interrogation room” with Hahn, Gipson, and
Meder. Gipson read defendant the Miranda warnings and asked whether he wanted to make a
statement. Defendant did not speak to the officers and declined to sign a statement. He did not
have a firearm in his vehicle, did not throw one from the vehicle, and did not tell anyone he had a
firearm or marijuana or that he had smoked a blunt.
¶ 10 During cross-examination, defendant denied “taking off” after speaking to Hahn. Rather,
Hahn told him to “ ‘get out [of] the car’ ” and punched him through an open window. At the police
station, he did not tell the officers anything and only asked for an attorney. Defendant denied
-4-
No. 1-17-1793
stating that he threw a firearm and cannabis from the vehicle, or that someone gave him the firearm
two days prior to his arrest and he had it for protection. The State then showed defendant People’s
Exhibit No. 9 and asked whether he recognized it. Trial counsel objected, and the State explained
that this exhibit was a “handwritten statement” that defendant gave to police but “refused to sign.” 2
The trial court overruled the objection. Defendant testified that the handwriting was not his, and
reiterated that he had declined to make a statement to police and asked for an attorney when he
was given the Miranda warnings. He also denied signing the photographs of the firearm.
¶ 11 The State presented Meder in rebuttal. Meder testified that after Hahn approached
defendant’s vehicle, defendant drove away and disobeyed several stop signs. Meder denied that
Hahn struck defendant or that defendant asked for an attorney. Meder was present when Gipson
transcribed defendant’s statement and the “substance” of the statement came from defendant.
Defendant signed the photographs of the firearm. During cross-examination, Meder testified that
the traffic stop was the first time he saw defendant.
¶ 12 In surrebuttal, defendant testified that he had five previous encounters with Meder dating
back to the early 2000s. Meder had never called defendant by name, but once entered defendant’s
home during a raid. The last encounter before defendant’s arrest in this case was in July 2013, and
Detectives Hahn, Bruno, Gipson, and Naylor were also present.
¶ 13 The trial court found defendant guilty of eight counts of AUUW and one count of UUWF,
and not guilty of armed violence and aggravated fleeing. Trial counsel filed a motion for a new
trial.
2
The record reflects that the State did not ask the court to admit People’s Exhibit No. 9 into
evidence.
-5-
No. 1-17-1793
¶ 14 On July 19, 2016, trial counsel told the court that defendant’s family had hired a private
attorney. Defendant told the trial court that he wanted a different attorney to “file ineffective
assistance of counsel and certain other things.” On August 16, 2016, defendant told the trial court
that he was unable to hire a private attorney and wanted to proceed pro se. After admonishing
defendant pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401 (eff. July 1, 1984), the trial court permitted
defendant to proceed pro se. Defendant stated he had had not prepared a posttrial motion because
trial counsel had not given him “anything” pertaining to the case. The trial court asked defendant
what he was seeking, and he answered “[i]neffective assistance of counsel.” The court repeated
the question, and defendant requested transcripts, the motion to suppress, and discovery.
¶ 15 On September 12, 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion alleging, in pertinent part, that
upon receipt of transcripts and a complete record, his attorney would file a “motion for ineffective
assistance [of] counsel.” 3 At a September 27, 2016 court date, the court acknowledged receipt of
the pro se motion and defendant received copies of the grand jury transcript and discovery.
¶ 16 On March 7, 2017, defendant filed a pro se motion for a new trial. Following argument,
the trial court denied the motion. The court merged the AUUW findings into count II for AUUW,
and sentenced defendant, due to his criminal background, to a Class X term of 10 years in prison
on that count. The court also sentenced defendant to a concurrent 10-year term for UUWF.
Defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence, which the court denied. On August 3,
2017, this court allowed defendant’s late notice of appeal.
¶ 17 On appeal, defendant first contends that the State violated his right to confrontation by
using an Illinois State Police certification to establish that he did not have a FOID card or a
3
The record does not show that any other attorney entered an appearance for defendant.
-6-
No. 1-17-1793
concealed carry license. Defendant acknowledges that he forfeited this issue by failing to raise it
at trial and in a posttrial motion, but asks this court to review it pursuant to the plain error doctrine.
¶ 18 The plain error doctrine permits a reviewing court to address a forfeited claim where a
“clear or obvious error occurred” and either (1) “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error
alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of
the error,” or (2) the “error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and
challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18.
¶ 19 The State responds by invoking the doctrine of invited error, which prevents a party from
“complain[ing] of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party
consented.” In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004). When “a defendant procures,
invites, or acquiesces in the admission of evidence, even though the evidence is improper, [he]
cannot contest the admission on appeal.” People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332, (2005). “This is
because, by acquiescing in rather than objecting to the admission of allegedly improper evidence,
a defendant deprives the State of the opportunity to cure the alleged defect.” Id. Because invited
errors are not subject to plain-error review, we must determine whether defendant invited the
alleged error at trial before considering his argument under the plain error doctrine. People v.
Sanders, 2012 IL App (1st) 102040, ¶ 30.
¶ 20 The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against
him.” U.S. Const., amend. VI; see also Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8 (“In criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall have the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her ***.”).
-7-
No. 1-17-1793
Therefore, “[t]estimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where
the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-
examine.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004). Since the admission of the Illinois
State Police certificate does not involve disputed facts, our review of whether defendant’s right of
confrontation was violated is de novo. See People v. Cox, 2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 57 (“where
the facts are undisputed and the declarant’s statement and any comments about it are before us, we
apply a de novo standard of review”).
¶ 21 In People v. Diggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 142088, ¶ 16, we found that an Illinois State Police
certification stating that a defendant lacked a FOID card was a testimonial statement under
Crawford which implicated the confrontation clause. There, the State produced an Illinois State
Police certification stating the defendant did not possess a valid FOID card, which was admitted
into evidence over defense counsel’s objection. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. The defendant testified on cross-
examination that he did not possess a FOID card. Id. ¶ 8. Nonetheless, we found that the
certification violated the confrontation clause and warranted a new trial since the State could not
have proven the defendant lacked a FOID card without the certification and the State presented no
arguments on appeal that the error was harmless. Id. ¶¶ 17-19.
¶ 22 In Cox, by contrast, we found no error in the admission of a similar Illinois State Police
certification regarding a FOID card. In that case, the trial court gave trial counsel three chances to
object to the certification’s admission, and trial counsel declined to object each time. Cox, 2017
IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 26. During closing arguments, the State argued that the fact that defendant
lacked a FOID card was uncontested, and the defense did not object to the certificate. Id. ¶¶ 36,
74. On appeal, we determined that the defendant “invited the trial court to admit the certificate by
-8-
No. 1-17-1793
affirmatively responding to the trial court’s questions that it had no objection to its admission.” Id.
¶ 76. In so holding, we distinguished Diggins on the ground that Diggins concerned evidence that
the defense disputed. Id. ¶¶ 80-83.
¶ 23 In this case, the reasoning of Cox applies. The trial court asked whether trial counsel
objected to the admission of the Illinois State Police certification and trial counsel replied, “No
objection.” Nothing prevented trial counsel from making an objection. See Cox, 2017 IL App (1st)
151536, ¶ 75 (“If the defense had objected at any point during trial, *** the State could have easily
remedied the problem by simply calling the State employee to the stand.”). During closing
argument, trial counsel also did not argue that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant lacked a FOID card or concealed carry permit, nor did trial counsel raise this issue
in a posttrial motion. We therefore conclude that the admission of the certification did not violate
defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause. See People v. Johnson, 2019 IL App (1st)
161104, ¶¶ 28-29 (no confrontation clause violation when the defense did not object to the
certification’s admission or the State’s mention of it during closing argument, did not dispute
whether the State proved that the defendant did not have a FOID card, and did not raise the error
in a posttrial motion). Rather, defendant acquiesced in the entry of the Illinois State Police
certification and cannot now contend its admission was error. See Swope, 213 Ill. 2d at 217.
Because invited errors are not subject to plain-error review, we need not consider whether plain
error occurred. Sanders, 2012 IL App (1st) 102040, ¶ 30.
¶ 24 In the alternative, defendant argues he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel
because counsel failed to object to the admission of the Illinois State Police certification. To
establish ineffective assistance, a defendant must show that “(1) counsel’s performance was
-9-
No. 1-17-1793
objectively unreasonable compared to prevailing professional standards and (2) there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.” People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 30 (citing Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)). In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective
assistance, a defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s challenged action or
inaction was the product of sound trial strategy. People v. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d 319, 327 (2011).
“[D]ecisions regarding what matters to object to and when to object are matters of trial strategy,”
and “will typically not support a claim of ineffective representation.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 82.
¶ 25 When considering a similar claim in Cox, we found that “the only way that defense
counsel’s decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if
defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.” (Emphasis omitted.) Cox,
2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 88. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the record on appeal that
suggests defendant had a valid FOID card or a concealed permit, or that the Illinois State Police
certification was erroneous. Further, trial counsel did not argue that defendant possessed a valid
FOID card or concealed carry permit; rather, the defense theory at trial was that defendant did not
possess the firearm at issue and that the detectives assumed it belonged to defendant due to their
prior contact with him. Overall, the record supports the conclusion that trial counsel’s decision not
to object was trial strategy. See People v. Phillips, 217 Ill. 2d 270, 286-87 (2005) (concluding that
trial counsel’s cross-examination of a forensic scientist on a report may not have had “any tactical
advantage” when “such testimony would have been an unnecessary distraction” from the defense’s
theory of the case). Defendant has not overcome the strong presumption that this strategy was
- 10 -
No. 1-17-1793
sound. See Manning, 241 Ill. 2d at 327; see also Johnson, 2019 IL App (1st) 161104, ¶ 32
(concluding that trial counsel’s decision not to object was an intentional strategy because testimony
regarding the defendant’s failure to possess a FOID card would only have emphasized his unlawful
conduct). Accordingly, defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.
¶ 26 Defendant next contends, and the State concedes, that his conviction for UUWF should be
vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule because it is based on the same physical act as his
conviction for AUUW. Defendant acknowledges he did not preserve this issue in the trial court
because he failed to raise it in a postsentencing motion. See People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544
(2010). However, one-act, one-crime errors are subject to the plain-error exception to the forfeiture
rule because they implicate the integrity of the judicial process. People v. Nunez, 236 Ill. 2d 488,
493 (2010). A one-act, one-crime challenge presents a question of law, which we review de novo.
People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 47.
¶ 27 Under the one-act, one-crime rule, “a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses
that are based upon precisely the same physical act.” People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 97 (2010).
Accordingly, where two convictions arise from the same physical act, the sentence should be
imposed on the more serious offense, and the sentence on the less serious offense should be
vacated. People v. West, 2017 IL App (1st) 143632, ¶ 24. When “determining which offense is the
more serious, a reviewing court compares the relative punishments prescribed by the legislature
for each offense,” as greater punishment is mandated for the more serious offense. See People v.
Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156, 170 (2009).
¶ 28 As the State correctly concedes, defendant’s convictions for AUUW and UUWF, as
charged in this case, are both predicated on the same physical act of possession of the same firearm
- 11 -
No. 1-17-1793
and therefore violate the one-act, one-crime rule. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Defendant was convicted of the
Class 2 felony of AUUW based on a prior felony conviction (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (3)(a-5),
(d)(3) (West Supp 2013)), and the Class 3 felony of UUWF (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2012)).
Therefore, UUWF is the less serious offense (Artis, 232 Ill. 2d at 170), and the sentence thereon
must be vacated (West, 2017 IL App (1st) 143632, ¶ 24).
¶ 29 Defendant finally contends that the cause should be remanded for a preliminary Krankel
inquiry into his posttrial pro se oral and written claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The State agrees, noting that although defendant told the court at a posttrial hearing that he wanted
to hire a new attorney to “file ineffective assistance of counsel,” the court never inquired into his
claims.
¶ 30 The Krankel procedure “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29. “A pro se defendant
need only bring his or her claim to the trial court’s attention.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112,
¶ 96. A defendant is not required to file a written motion but may raise the issue orally or through
a letter or note to the trial court. People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11. Where the trial court does
not conduct a preliminary examination into the factual basis of a defendant’s pro se allegations of
ineffective assistance, the case must be remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the court to
do so. People v. Craig, 2020 IL App (2d) 170679, ¶ 13. A trial court’s alleged failure to inquire
into a claim of ineffective assistance is reviewed de novo. People v. Bates, 2019 IL 124143, ¶ 14.
¶ 31 We agree with the parties that the trial court’s duty to conduct a preliminary inquiry was
triggered when defendant stated that he wished to retain a new attorney to file an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. See Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶¶ 14, 24 (a defendant’s bare use of the
- 12 -
No. 1-17-1793
words “ineffective assistance of counsel,” without any further explanation, is sufficient to trigger
the inquiry). Moreover, while representing himself, defendant stated orally and in writing that he
wished to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record shows, however, that the
trial court never inquired into the factual basis of defendant’s claims. The case must therefore be
remanded for a preliminary Krankel inquiry. Id. ¶ 26.
¶ 32 For the reasons discussed above, we vacate defendant’s sentence for UUWF and remand
the case to the trial court for a preliminary Krankel inquiry. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court in all other aspects.
¶ 33 Affirmed in part; vacated in part; remanded.
- 13 -