People v. Jones

2020 IL App (1st) 172096No. 1-17-2096
Order filed January 27, 2020
First 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 ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Cook County.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 15 CR 15402
)
STANLEY JONES, )
) The Honorable
Defendant-Appellant. ) Neera Lall Walsh,
) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Griffin and Justice Walker concurred in the judgment and opinion.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The State produced enough evidence to support defendant’s attempted aggravated
robbery conviction; defendant’s argument that he should have been charged with
vehicular hijacking fails as a matter of law and under the facts.
¶2 An apparent “road rage” incident ended with Stanley Jones’ arrest for attempting to rob
Jonathan Casaccio in a parking lot. After a bench trial, the judge convicted Jones of attempted
aggravated robbery with a firearm and sentenced him to six and one-half years imprisonment.
1-17-2096
¶3 Jones seeks outright reversal, arguing (i) the State did not present sufficient evidence to
prove he used a weapon when demanding Casaccio’s car keys, and (ii) at most, he was guilty of
violating the vehicular hijacking statute by attempting to take Casaccio’s car.
¶4 We affirm. A surveillance video from the parking lot showed that the entire attempt robbery
lasted about three minutes and corroborated the testimony of two witnesses. Both witnesses
testified that the entire time Jones argued with Casaccio, Jones had a heavy object in his pocket
and continually demanded Casaccio’s car keys. Both witnesses assumed that the object was a gun.
Minor inconsistencies in the evidence did not negate the reasonable inference that Jones took a
substantial step toward aggravated robbery, as defined by statute. We find a rational trier of fact
could find Jones guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶5 Next, Jones argues the robbery statute specifically excludes a motor vehicle from the
definition of “property,” and, at most, he attempted to take Casaccio’s car in violation of the
vehicular hijacking statute. Under that statute, the State must prove the defendant took the victim’s
car from the victim’s person or immediate presence (Jones was never charged with vehicular
hijacking). His argument fails because the State proved that while armed with what the victim
thought was a gun, Jones attempted to rob him.
¶6 Background
¶7 Casaccio worked at his father’s grocery store near the intersection of Madison Street and
Central Avenue, Chicago. About 9:00 a.m. on September 8, 2015, Casaccio was driving to work
on the Eisenhower Expressway in a black Audi sedan. Casaccio testified that he noticed a maroon
Lincoln tailing him in his rear-view mirror. The Lincoln was inches away from Casaccio’s car.
The Lincoln pulled alongside on Casaccio’s side. Both cars had their windows down and Casaccio
could see Jones driving alone. Jones was screaming loudly at him. Casaccio realized Jones wanted
-2-
1-17-2096
him to pull over so Casaccio pretended to exit at Harlem, but instead continued driving to the
Central exit. When Casaccio stopped behind another car at a red light, Jones blocked Casaccio’s
car from behind, got out, and approached Casaccio on the passenger side. Jones began punching
the windows and trying to open the door, which Casaccio had locked. When the light changed,
Casaccio drove off. He then heard a loud bang and saw that his rear window was broken. Jones
was standing directly behind his car.
¶8 Casaccio stopped at Madison and Central for a red light. Jones pulled up, again got out,
and began banging with his fist on Casaccio’s driver’s side window. Casaccio turned the corner
and pulled into the parking lot of the grocery store where he worked. There, Casaccio met Lonnie
Reaves, the store manager, whom he had called when he was a few minutes away from the store.
Casaccio called the police. He and Reaves were standing in the receiving area looking outside,
when they saw Jones walking toward them from the barber shop across the parking lot. Jones’s
right hand was in his sweatpants pocket. A heavy bulge appeared in his pocket, weighing down
his pants, and he was “fidgeting the whole time with his right hand.” When asked why he described
the bulge as “heavy,” Casaccio said, “Because when he wasn’t holding it, it was obviously, weight
hanging from it; and he was–-his whole tone, and his whole attitude when he was talking to us,
was directed with using his right hand.”
¶9 Jones went up to Casaccio’s car and tried to open the door; it was locked. Jones approached
Casaccio, demanding his keys. Casaccio refused. Jones pulled his right hand out of his pocket and
punched Casaccio in the face. Reaves tried to separate them.
¶ 10 Jones and Casaccio continued to argue, with Jones telling Casaccio he wanted to take the
fight into the alley. Jones took off his sweatshirt and draped it over his shoulder, then took
something out of his right pocket and “aimed” at Casaccio. Jones stood as though he was going to
-3-
1-17-2096
shoot a gun, but Casaccio never saw a gun. Jones had his right hand in his right pocket most of the
time, except when he punched Casaccio.
¶ 11 Jones ran out of the parking lot before the police arrived. Two days later, a detective
returned to the store with a photo array of six men. Casaccio picked out Jones.
¶ 12 The court viewed a video from the parking lot camera showing Jones walking in the
parking lot with his right hand in his pocket, approaching Casaccio’s car on the driver’s side, and
trying to open the car door. Reaves and Casaccio immediately walk up and Jones and Casaccio
begin arguing and gesturing. Jones takes his hand out of his pocket and hits Casaccio in the face.
Casaccio reacts and moves toward Jones, with Reaves beside them. The three men then quickly
move out of camera view. After several seconds, they appear but farther away. Jones takes his
sweatshirt off while facing Casaccio and Reaves, who continue to move away from the camera.
Jones too is backing away, but twice he comes toward the two men with his jacket over his arm.
Reaves appears to be intervening, then for several seconds all the men are out of view. Suddenly
Casaccio is visible, running back toward the store with his phone. He said he was calling the police
and his father. Jones runs in the other direction. The entire video is 4 minutes, 10 seconds. Jones
appears about 10 seconds after the video begins and leaves the parking lot about three minutes
later.
¶ 13 Lonnie Reaves testified that he had known Casaccio, one of the owner’s sons, for about 15
years. That morning about 10 a.m., Reaves received a phone call from Casaccio, who was talking
fast. Reaves went outside the store and waited in the parking lot of a laundromat next to the
grocery. He saw Casaccio’s car turn off Central onto Madison, then speed down the street and pull
through the gate into the grocery parking lot. A maroon Lincoln was following him. Casaccio
parked near the receiving entrance and got out of his car. The Lincoln parked on the street. Reaves
-4-
1-17-2096
saw a person get out of the Lincoln and walk into the parking lot, turn around, and go into the
barber shop nearby. Ten minutes later the same person came out of the barber shop wearing a black
sweater and gray sweatpants. Reaves identified the person as Jones.
¶ 14 Jones walked up to Casaccio’s car and grabbed the driver’s door handle. It was locked.
Reaves and Casaccio approached Jones, and Casaccio and Jones began arguing. Jones continually
demanded Casaccio’s keys. At this point, Jones had his right hand in his pants pocket. Then, Jones
punched Casaccio’s face with his right hand in a fist. Jones started to back away from Casaccio
and put his right hand back in his pocket. Reaves tried to get between them, but Jones and Casaccio
kept arguing. Jones wanted to go into the alley and fight. Jones took his sweater off and put it over
his shoulder. Jones kept demanding Casaccio’s keys and Reaves described Jones as
“confrontational.” Reaves looked away to tell the other employees, who were now watching, to
call the police; when he looked back Jones was in a “stance” with his left arm up and his right
hand underneath his left arm. The jacket was over his right arm. Reaves never saw a gun. Reaves
pushed Jones up against a truck and pointed out all the cameras in the parking lot. Jones ran away.
¶ 15 Two days later, Reaves identified Jones in a photo array of six photographs supplied by a
police detective.
¶ 16 Chicago Police Detective Michael Lynch testified that he investigated the incident. After
speaking to Casaccio by phone, Lynch compiled a six-photo array that included Jones. Casaccio
and Reaves identified Jones as the assailant.
¶ 17 Jones was arrested on September 12, 2015. Lynch interviewed Jones while he was in
custody. After waiving his Miranda rights, Jones told Lynch that while driving on the Eisenhower,
he may have cut off a “kid” with tinted windows who rolled down his windows and yelled at him
to get off. They got off the expressway at Central Avenue, got out of their cars, and the “kid”
-5-
1-17-2096
pulled out a silver handgun. Jones threw a bottle at the car that broke the rear window because he
was mad about the gun. Jones said he got back in the car and followed the “kid” to the grocery
parking lot. Jones denied trying to rob anyone or having a gun.
¶ 18 Lynch admitted that at the preliminary hearing, he testified Casaccio said he pulled a gun
first when they were on Central Avenue, but Lynch stated he misunderstood the question at the
preliminary hearing, and his testimony was a mistake. Lynch testified Casaccio never said he had
a gun or pointed a gun at Jones. Lynch said that he mixed up the names and he was nervous. Lynch
had been a police officer for 25 years.
¶ 19 At the close of the State’s case, the trial court admitted into evidence the photo arrays,
Casaccio’s and Reaves’ signed advisory forms, and the surveillance video (People’s Exhibits 1
through 5).
¶ 20 The only defense witness was Jones. Jones testified that while driving eastbound on the
Eisenhower, the traffic began to slow down, so he decided to exit at Des Plaines Avenue. Without
using his turn signal, Jones cut off Casaccio, whose car “tapped the back of my vehicle,” chipping
the paint a little. They found themselves driving side-by-side and began arguing. Jones got off at
Central and turned north to go to his sister’s house at 1657 North Mayfield, Chicago. Jones was in
front of Casaccio. At Central and Adams, Jones looked in his rear-view mirror and saw the black
Audi behind him. Jones pulled over and got out of his car. Casaccio got out of his car and stood
behind his car door. Casaccio took out a gun and “just pointed,” then drove away. As Casaccio’s
car passed him, Jones threw a glass juice bottle and broke the rear window. Jones followed
Casaccio. When they arrived at the grocery parking lot, Jones and Casaccio argued about why
Casaccio pulled out a gun. Jones hit Casaccio with his fist. Reaves then threw Jones up against a
-6-
1-17-2096
truck and told him there were cameras. Jones denied having a gun, threatening Casaccio, or trying
to take anything from Casaccio.
¶ 21 On cross-examination, Jones testified he was working temporary service jobs but went to
his sister’s house on Mayfield almost every day to apply for jobs online. At the time, Jones thought
Casaccio was following him, but he later learned that Casaccio worked at the grocery and it was a
coincidence that they were going in the same direction.
¶ 22 Jones went up to the Audi and pulled on the car doors because the windows were tinted,
and he couldn’t see if anyone was inside. Jones wanted to confront Casaccio even though he had
just pulled out a gun. Jones was “acting out of anger,” ready to fight.
¶ 23 After Jones testified, the State introduced certified copies of four convictions.
¶ 24 The trial court found Casaccio credible, and Reaves’ testimony corroborated Casaccio. The
trial court observed that Jones was the aggressor when he went to the grocery and approached
Casaccio. It was not logical that Jones would throw a bottle at Casaccio’s car after Casaccio pulled
a gun on him; nor was it logical that Jones would pursue Casaccio if he believed Casaccio had a
gun. The trial court viewed Jones’s testimony as “fantastical” because Jones said he was on his
way to his sister’s house on “Maypole” (not “Mayfield” as Jones stated), and that was the wrong
way.
¶ 25 Also significant, Reaves corroborated Casaccio’s testimony that Jones seemed to have
something heavy in his pocket and Jones kept his right hand in his pocket the entire time, except
when he punched Casaccio. The trial court commented that Reaves “seems to have the coolest
head here.”
-7-
1-17-2096
¶ 26 The trial court also found Lynch’s testimony credible. The mistaken testimony about
Casaccio saying he had a gun was a minor inconsistency in the State’s case which did not outweigh
the State’s evidence of proof of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 27 Because of his convictions, Jones was eligible for an extended term of incarceration. The
trial court sentenced him to six and one-half years in prison.
¶ 28 Analysis
¶ 29 Jones contends he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jones argues (i) the
alleged threat of force was unrelated to the alleged demand for Casaccio’s car keys; (ii) the trial
court relied on improper information in discounting exculpatory testimony; and (iii) the aggravated
robbery statute excludes the offense of attempting to take a car by force.
¶ 30 Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶ 31 Reviewing courts do not retry cases. People v. Milka, 211 Ill. 2d 150, 178 (2004).
Reviewing courts consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the
essential elements of the crime. People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48. The trier of fact has the
responsibility “to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)). Where evidence presents conflicting inferences, proper resolution best belongs to the trier
of fact. People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363, 375, 380 (1992). On review, this court allows all
reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution. People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318,
326 (2005).
¶ 32 In a bench trial, the trial judge presumably considers only competent evidence in reaching
its verdict. People v. Gilbert, 68 Ill. 2d 252, 258 (1977). This presumption may be rebutted by
-8-
1-17-2096
affirmative evidence in the record. Id. at 259. The court determines the weight of the evidence and
the credibility of the witnesses, resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony, and draws
reasonable inferences. People v. Simon, 2011 IL App (1st) 091197, ¶ 52. The fact finder need not
accept a defendant’s version of events. Milka, 211 Ill. 2d at 178.
¶ 33 Aggravated robbery involves taking property either by force or threatening the imminent
use of force “while indicating verbally or by his or her actions to the victim that he or she is
presently armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon,” even if it is later determined that he
or she had no firearm or other dangerous weapon. 720 ILCS 5/18-1(b)(1) (West 2014). The attempt
statute requires a “substantial step” toward the commission of a specific offense with intent to
commit that offense. 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2014).
¶ 34 Jones claims the evidence is in “equipoise”—a state of equal balance. Three occurrence
witnesses testified, including the two main actors in the altercation, Casaccio and Jones. Much of
their testimony was consistent as far as driving on the expressway, making their way to the grocery
store, and arguing in the parking lot. Casaccio and Jones disagreed, however, as to who was the
pursuer in the traffic chase. Casaccio stated Jones tailgated him and yelled at him to pull over,
apparently for no reason. Jones stated he cut off Casaccio in heavy traffic, Casaccio “tapped” his
car, and an argument ensued. Jones did not call 911 at this point. When they exited the expressway
at Central Avenue, their testimony differs as to which one was in the lead and which one had a
gun. Casaccio said his car was first, and when they stopped at a stop sign, Jones approached and
tried to break the window by pounding with his fist. According to Jones, he was driving in front
of Casaccio and when they stopped, Casaccio got out of his car and pulled a gun. As Casaccio’s
car passed him, Jones threw a glass juice bottle and broke Casaccio’s rear window. Jones then
followed Casaccio. Jones did not call 911 then either.
-9-
1-17-2096
¶ 35 Jones argues the State’s evidence showed that Jones indicated he had a weapon after he
demanded Casaccio’s car keys which was only part of the ongoing argument, not an attempt to
take his property. His argument ignores Reaves’ testimony that Jones had a heavy object in his
pocket and demanded the car keys throughout the exchange between Casaccio and Jones. Reaves
is not involved until Casaccio arrives at the grocery store. His testimony corroborated Casaccio’s
regarding events from that point on.
¶ 36 Jones asserts the trial court made erroneous findings and considered facts not in evidence
when it rejected Jones’ version of events. Jones claims his testimony was consistent with objective
evidence, that is, the surveillance footage. The video, which has no sound, captures the movements
and body language of all three main actors—Jones, Casaccio, and Reaves. At times a delivery
truck obscures their movements, but the gaps last a few seconds and most of the salient acts appear
on tape. The entire incident lasts three minutes, from Jones’ first appearance on camera as he
entered the parking lot through the back gate to when he leaves the parking lot.
¶ 37 The video shows the entire incident lasted about three minutes. When Casaccio parked in
the grocery parking lot, his car’s rear window had a large hole. Casaccio gets out of his car with
his cell phone. Jones is walking across the parking lot towards Casaccio’s car with his right hand
in his right pants pocket. As Jones stands next to the driver’s door, Casaccio and Reaves enter the
camera range just a few feet away. Their presence contradicts Jones’s testimony that he went up
to Casaccio’s car because he couldn’t see whether anyone was inside. Casaccio gestures with both
arms extended, looking at the rear of his car with the broken window. The three men move away
from the car; Jones still with his right hand in his pocket. Arguing, Jones circles around Reaves,
pulls his right hand out of his pocket and punches Casaccio’s face. Casaccio lunges toward Jones
who backs up. All three men move farther away but can be seen arguing and gesturing. At two
-10-
1-17-2096
different occasions, for a few seconds, a large truck blocks the view. After backing away and
returning twice, Jones ultimately approaches with the jacket over his arm. Seconds later, Casaccio
is seen running back toward the store, and Jones is running in the opposite direction toward the
gate. Reaves emerges from behind the truck and walks quickly toward the store.
¶ 38 With the gap in the video (caused by a parked truck in the frame of view), we are left with
the testimony that Casaccio and Reaves believed Jones had a gun when he turned around and
assumed a “stance.” Casaccio saw Jones take “an object” out of his pocket, and later stated he saw
“part of a gun” in Jones’s hand. Reaves never saw a gun in Jones’s hand, but Jones’s hand was
covered with his sweater. Reaves demonstrated the “stance” by holding up both hands with his
right hand as if he had a gun and his left hand over his right. When the three men re-appear from
behind the truck, Casaccio and Reaves are running toward the store and Jones is running in the
opposite direction. Jones’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove he used a weapon
when demanding Casaccio’s car keys fails.
¶ 39 The trial court found Jones’ testimony that he continued to pursue Casaccio after Casaccio
threatened him with a gun as not logical. We note the trial court’s comments on the “minor”
inconsistencies in the State’s case as not outweighing the proof of the elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt.
¶ 40 Vehicular Hijacking
¶ 41 Assuming this court finds insufficient evidence to prove attempted aggravated armed
robbery, Jones argues the substantive offense the State could prove meets the definition of
vehicular hijacking, which is expressly excluded from the aggravated robbery statute. The State
asserts the only reasonable inference is that Jones’s demand for Casaccio’s car keys was designed
to prevent Casaccio from escaping.
-11-
1-17-2096
¶ 42 While we need not reach this argument, Jones would not prevail were we to reverse his
conviction. We are guided by People v Cooksey, 309 Ill. App. 3d 839 (1999). The victim was
walking out of a shopping mall carrying a bank deposit bag and was 25 feet away from her car
when the defendant suddenly jumped in front of the victim and demanded her car keys. After she
turned over the keys, she ran into the shopping mall. The defendant sped off in her car. The
appellate court found the evidence did not support a finding that defendant took the car from the
victim’s person or immediate presence as the statute requires to support a conviction for vehicular
hijacking. It was significant that at no time did the victim approach her car, nor was she attempting
to get into her car, when the defendant took her keys. Cooksey went on to analyze the defendant’s
conviction for robbery and concluded that the jury verdict was not so improbable as to leave a
reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. Id. at 850. Cooksey’s conviction for robbery was
affirmed at the same time his conviction for vehicular hijacking was reversed.
¶ 43 The third district followed Cooksey in People v. McGee, 326 Ill. App. 3d 165 (2001), where
the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The victim’s car was parked in the
driveway when she was assaulted inside the house and her keys were taken. Id. at 168, 170. So,
the victim was not in the immediate control of her car when it was stolen. Id. The court found the
defendant was incorrectly charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking. Id. at 170-71.
¶ 44 Footage of the parking lot corroborated Casaccio and Reaves’s testimony that Casaccio
was not in or even near his car during the argument. Only Jones approached Casaccio’s car; the
closest Casaccio came was to stand behind it gesturing at the broken rear window. A charge of
vehicular hijacking would have been inappropriate.
¶ 45 Affirmed.
-12-