People v. Jackson

NOTICE
2020 IL App (5th) 170167-U NOTICE
Decision filed 04/13/20. The This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NO. 5-17-0167 Supreme Court Rule 23 and
changed or corrected prior to may not be cited as precedent
the filing of a Petition for by any party except in the
Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed
the same.
under Rule 23(e)(1).
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) St. Clair County.
)
v. ) No. 12-CF-1154
)
TYRICE JACKSON, ) Honorable
) Robert B. Haida,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Overstreet and Boie concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court properly dismissed the defendant’s postconviction petition
where the defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty to two
counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and where the defendant’s
allegation that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and
accepting an excessive sentence is belied by the record and facts of the
charges and plea.
¶2 The defendant, Tyrice Jackson, appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of his
postconviction petition. The Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) was appointed
to represent the defendant. OSAD filed a motion seeking to withdraw as counsel, alleging
that there is no merit to the appeal. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987); People
v. McKenney, 255 Ill. App. 3d 644 (1994). The defendant was given proper notice and
1
granted an extension of time to file briefs, objections, or any other document supporting
his appeal. The defendant did not file a response. We considered OSAD’s motion to
withdraw as counsel on appeal. We examined the entire record on appeal and found no
error or potential grounds for appeal. For the following reasons, we grant OSAD’s motion
to withdraw as counsel on appeal and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair
County.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 The St. Clair County sheriff’s office interviewed the defendant regarding allegations
that he had inappropriately touched A.C., a seven-year-old child. In that recorded
interview, the defendant admitted to touching A.C.’s vagina on two separate occasions. He
further indicated how far he inserted his finger into A.C.’s vagina. When asked how he
accessed A.C.’s vagina, he stated that he put his hand up the opening of her shorts. He went
on to demonstrate how he did that by reaching up his own shorts.
¶5 The State charged the defendant with two counts of predatory criminal sexual
assault of a victim under 13 years of age. The State indicated the sentencing range for each
count was 6 to 30 years, and under the truth in sentencing guidelines the defendant would
be required to serve 85% of any sentence received on either count. Additionally, if
convicted on both counts, the sentences would have to be served consecutively, making his
potential sentence 12 to 60 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
¶6 On two separate occasions a doubt was raised concerning the defendant’s fitness.
The first was whether he was fit to waive his Miranda rights before being interviewed by
2
police. The second was whether he was fit to stand trial. He was evaluated professionally
after each doubt arose. In both instances, he was found fit.
¶7 The St. Clair Child Advocacy Center interviewed A.C. about the events that
allegedly occurred between her and the defendant. This interview was recorded. A.C. stated
that on more than one occasion the defendant had touched her vagina with his hand and
that it was skin on skin contact. When asked how the defendant accessed her vagina, she
indicated that he reached up her shorts. She went on to demonstrate, in the exact same
manner that the defendant did in his interview, how the defendant accessed her vagina.
¶8 The circuit court held a hearing on the admissibility at trial of the video recording
of A.C.’s interview. Following argument and having watched the video, the circuit court
granted the State’s motion seeking that the video be admissible at trial.
¶9 Ultimately, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to both counts in exchange for a
sentence of 7.5 years on each count for a total term of incarceration of 15 years.
Additionally, following his term of imprisonment, the defendant would be required to serve
a term of mandatory supervised release of anywhere from three years to life. He would also
be required to register as a sex offender.
¶ 10 Prior to accepting the defendant’s plea, the circuit court discussed the following
with the defendant. The defendant was 20 years old and had completed high school. The
defendant did not have a mental or physical disability that would affect his ability to
understand what was happening.
“THE COURT: All right. Sir, do you believe you have any mental or physical
disability that would affect your ability to understand what you’re doing this
afternoon?
3
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Have you taken any medication or substance, drug or alcohol,
that would affect your ability to understand what you’re doing?
THE DEFENDANT: I took my—I took my psyche [sic] medicine this
morning at the jail.
THE COURT: Do you feel like it has an affect [sic] on your ability to
understand or to think about your discussions with your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Just tired a little bit.
THE COURT: Okay. But is it to the point where it is affecting—affecting
you at all?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Pardon?
THE DEFENDANT: No.”
¶ 11 When asked about his reading and understanding of the paperwork involved in his
plea deal, the defendant stated that he had some problems but that his attorney cleared them
up for him. The defendant affirmed that he had enough time to discuss the matter with his
attorney and was satisfied with his attorney’s services.
“THE COURT: Okay. Have you had any difficulty participating in and
understanding any discussions with Mr. Sullivan [plea counsel]?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Have you had any difficulty reading and understanding any
of the paperwork associated with your case?
THE DEFENDANT: Just a few, but he cleared it up.
THE COURT: All right. How about this afternoon, any difficulty with
anything we’ve said so far?
4
THE DEFENDANT: No, ma’am.
THE COURT: Have you had plenty of time and opportunity to discuss this
matter with your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the services performed on your behalf
by Mr. Sullivan?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: Sir, has anyone threatened you or promised you anything or
offered you anything for your plea of guilty on these charges?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: So[,] are you entering this plea freely and voluntarily, without
any pressure or force?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.”
The circuit court then explained the charges against the defendant, the possible range of
sentences if he was convicted, and the fact that convictions on both counts would result in
consecutive sentences totaling between 12 and 60 years. Additionally, the defendant would
be subject to mandatory supervised release and registration as a sexual predator. This
sentencing range, however, was incorrect. The correct sentencing range for each count was
between 6 and 60 years for a total possible range if convicted on both counts of 12 to 120
years. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40 (West 2012). The court verified that the defendant was a United
States citizen. The court then explained that the defendant had the right to plead not guilty
and be tried with the attendant rights of a trial.
¶ 12 The State then offered the following factual basis for the plea. On two separate dates,
the defendant placed his finger in the vagina of a minor. These crimes were corroborated
5
by the minor in an interview she gave as well as by a recorded confession made by the
defendant.
¶ 13 Finding the factual basis to be sufficient to support the charges and having found
the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to plead guilty, the trial court accepted the
defendant’s plea and entered conviction and sentences according to the plea.
¶ 14 The defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or a notice of appeal.
Later, however, he filed a postconviction petition. The circuit court appointed counsel to
assist the defendant with his postconviction petition. After discussions with the defendant
his counsel filed an amended postconviction petition.
¶ 15 The amended postconviction petition raised two claims of constitutional
deprivation. First, the defendant alleged that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary
because he was unfamiliar with the proceedings and because his medication (Paxil)
impaired his ability to understand the proceedings. Second, he alleged that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because his plea counsel coerced him to plead guilty in
exchange for an excessive sentence. The State filed a motion to dismiss, and the circuit
court granted that motion.
¶ 16 Subsequently, the defendant filed a notice of appeal regarding the dismissal of his
postconviction petition. OSAD was appointed to represent the defendant on appeal. After
reviewing the circuit court record, OSAD determined that the appeal was meritless and
filed a Finley motion asking permission to withdraw from representing the defendant in
this appeal.
6
¶ 17 ANALYSIS
¶ 18 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014))
allows state prisoners to “assert that their convictions were the result of a substantial denial
of their rights under the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution.” People v.
Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 379 (1998). The Act provides a three-stage process for dealing
with postconviction petitions. People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 9. “At the first stage, the
circuit court must independently review the petition, taking the allegations as true, and
determine whether the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit. [Citation.] A
petition may be summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit only if the
petition has no arguable basis either in law or in fact.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Id.¶ 19 If the petition is not dismissed as being frivolous and patently without merit the
circuit court dockets the petition for second stage proceedings and may appoint counsel for
an indigent defendant. Id. ¶ 10. At the second stage of the proceeding, the State files an
answer to the petition or a motion to dismiss. People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 10-11 (2009).
When confronted with a motion to dismiss a postconviction petition, “the circuit court is
concerned merely with determining whether the petition’s allegations sufficiently
demonstrate a constitutional infirmity which would necessitate relief under the Act.”
Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 380. At this stage of the proceedings the circuit court is not to
engage in any fact finding. Id. at 380-81. All facts not rebutted by the record are accepted
as true. People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 334 (2005). Our supreme court “has consistently
upheld the dismissal of a post-conviction petition when the allegations are contradicted by
7
the record from the original trial proceedings.” Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 382. We review a
second stage dismissal of a postconviction petition de novo. People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d
177, 182 (2005).
¶ 20 Knowing and Voluntary
¶ 21 “If a defendant’s guilty plea is not voluntary and knowing, it has been obtained in
violation of due process and, therefore, is void.” People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365, 370
(1999). The fact that a defendant “promptly answered every question asked by the trial
judge” weighs in favor of finding that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly and
intelligently. People v. Barkan, 30 Ill. App. 3d 305, 309 (1975).
¶ 22 Although the defendant claimed that he was unfamiliar with the proceedings, the
record reveals that the circuit court admonished him about the consequences of pleading
guilty, in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(a) (eff. July 1, 2012). The
defendant did not argue that he was improperly admonished. Instead, he argued that he was
unable to understand the proceedings because he was taking Paxil. The record refutes that
claim. As discussed above, dismissal of a postconviction petition is proper where the claims
made by the defendant are contradicted by the record. In response to the trial court’s inquiry
the defendant indicated that his “psyche” medication was not having any effect on his
ability to understand the proceedings. Additionally, the defendant’s comportment
throughout the hearing indicates that he understood what was happening and was able to
knowingly and willingly enter his plea of guilty.
8
¶ 23 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 24 The defendant also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because
his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty and urged him to accept a sentence that was
excessive. An allegation of a violation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of
counsel is evaluated under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted in Illinois by People v.
Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526-27 (1984). The standard has two prongs, both of which must
be satisfied for a defendant to prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. First,
the defendant must show that his “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness and that counsel’s shortcomings were so serious as to deprive the
defendant of a fair trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d at 525.
Second, the defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The reviewing court can address these requirements
in either order. Id. at 527. A failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard causes
the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel to fail; the court need not address both
prongs. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 670.
¶ 25 The defendant’s claim that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty is refuted
by the record. At the guilty plea hearing the trial court asked the defendant whether he was
satisfied with his attorney’s performance and whether anyone had made any threats,
promises, or offers in exchange for his plea of guilty. The defendant stated that he was
9
satisfied with counsel’s performance and that no one had made any threats, promises, or
offers in exchange for his guilty plea.
¶ 26 We also agree with OSAD that the defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective
for allowing him to accept an excessive sentence is meritless. “If a sentence is within the
statutory range, we presume it is not excessive.” People v. Busse, 2016 IL App (1st)
142941, ¶ 27. The range of possible terms of incarceration in this case was from 12 to 120
years. The defendant’s sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment is 105 years below the
maximum sentence he could have received and barely above the minimum. His sentence
is not excessive. Plea counsel cannot be ineffective for encouraging the defendant to take
an excessive sentence when the sentence was not excessive.
¶ 27 Finally, we address the consequences, if any, of the defendant being admonished
that the possible sentence was 6 to 30 years on each count instead of 6 to 60 years. Before
accepting a guilty plea, the court must inform the defendant of the minimum and maximum
sentence he faces if convicted of the crimes to which he pleads guilty. Ill. S. Ct. R. 402(a)(2)
(eff. July 1, 2012). The rule, however, requires only substantial compliance. People v
Dougherty, 394 Ill. App. 3d 134, 138 (2009); Ill. S. Ct. R. 402 (eff. July 1, 2012). “The
failure to properly admonish a defendant, standing alone, does not automatically establish
grounds for reversing the judgment or vacating the plea. *** Moreover, whether reversal
is required for an imperfect admonishment depends on whether real justice has been denied
or whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the inadequate admonishment. [Citation.]”
People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308, 323 (2002) There is no valid argument that real justice
was denied or that the defendant was prejudiced. It is common sense that if the defendant
10
was willing to plead guilty to avoid the potential of a 60-year sentence, he was much more
likely to plead guilty if he knew the maximum possible sentence was 120 years. There was
also no prejudice to the defendant because he was sentenced inside the range to which the
court admonished him.
¶ 28 CONCLUSION
¶ 29 None of the defendant’s claims are supported by the record. In fact, the record
contradicted the defendant’s claims. This is fatal to each claim raised in the petition. The
circuit court properly dismissed the defendant’s postconviction petition. Therefore, we
grant OSAD’s motion to withdraw and affirm the decision of the circuit court of St. Clair
County.
¶ 30 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.
11