People v. Beasley

2017 IL App (4th) 150291

85 N.E.3d 568

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Zebulin BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-15-0291

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

FILED September 26, 2017

Michael J. Pelletier, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Sonthonax B. SaintGermain, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Jay Scott, State's Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Linda McClain, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Zebulin Beasley, appeals from the second-stage dismissal of his amended postconviction petition. On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erroneously concluded his amended postconviction petition failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, (2) his postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance, and (3) the circuit clerk improperly imposed fines against him. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Information

¶ 4 In January 2009, the State charged defendant by information with three counts of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2008)), three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2008)), one count of retail theft ( 720 ILCS 5/16A-3(a) (West 2008)), one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West 2008)), and one count of unlawful use of a weapon ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)(iii) (West 2008)). Each count of first degree murder included a sentencing enhancement for the personal discharge of a firearm ( 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(ii) (West 2008)).

¶ 5 B. Plea Hearing

¶ 6 In February 2010, the trial court held a plea hearing. Defendant and the State indicated they reached a fully negotiated plea agreement. As part of that agreement, defendant would plead guilty to the charge of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2008)) in exchange for the State moving to amend the information to remove the sentencing enhancement, dismissing all other charges against defendant, and recommending a 30-year prison sentence.

¶ 7 The State moved to amend the information to remove the sentencing enhancement, which the trial court granted. The court admonished defendant as to the offense charged in the amended information and the possible penalties. Defendant indicated he understood. The court also admonished defendant as to the rights he was giving up if he pleaded guilty. Defendant indicated he understood. Defendant expressed his desire to plead guilty and signed a jury waiver.

¶ 8 The State provided the following factual basis in support of the plea:

"The State's evidence would show that on [January 24, 2009,] at around 12:54 p.m. officers from the Decatur Police Department were dispatched to 1537 East Walnut Street in Decatur on a shots fired call. Upon arrival, they located the victim, Nazareth Lee, in the kitchen area of this residence. The kitchen is just off an enclosed porch. Mr. Lee was laying [sic] on his back and had three apparent gunshot wounds. These turned out to be wounds caused by two bullets. One went through his left arm through and through and then entered his chest cavity striking a lung and damaging his aorta. That bullet was recovered. The second one went in the right arm and remained in the right arm, so it was recovered. Mr. Lee was taken to Decatur Memorial Hospital. He died there as a result of internal injuries sustained from the gunshot to his chest. Witnesses at the scene of this offense implicated [defendant] and Cordell Scott as being people involved in the shooting. Cordell Scott was interviewed following his Miranda rights by detectives Frank Hubbard and Charles Hendricks of the Decatur Police Department. Mr. Scott indicated he went to 1537 East Walnut with [defendant]. He, Scott, engaged in an argument with a visitor at the residence named Jamario Freeman on the front porch. Mr. Scott indicates [defendant] stood at the front of the house as this verbal argument went on, and that during the course of the argument, Jamario Freeman retrieved a knife and displayed it, although he did not swing at it or charge Mr. Scott with it. Cordell Scott indicates that at that point [defendant] then fired a gun at Jamario Freeman, and that he and [defendant] ran away after the shots were fired. [Defendant] was interviewed following his Miranda rights by Detectives Hubbard and James Atkinson of the Decatur Police Department. He indicated he had received a call that afternoon from a friend saying Jamario Freeman had threatened him with a knife. Cordell Scott decided to fight Jamario Freeman over that threat. The two of them then went to 1537 East Walnut to confront Jamario Freeman. [Defendant] brought along his .38 caliber revolver with him because he said Jamario Freeman was known to have weapons. Jamario Freeman and Cordell Scott engaged in a verbal argument. Cordell Scott then threw a beer bottle at the house. Jamario Freeman went inside, came back outside with a knife, displayed the weapon. And then [defendant] indicates he shot the weapon he carried at Jamario Freeman intending to kill Jamario Freeman. He indicates that he ran after he fired shots. He indicates later he left the area with his sister. He was taken to an alleyway in the 1000 block of East William Street and there hid a gun. The police went to 1044 West William Street and located a firearm beneath the backstairs of the residence there. [Defendant] was questioned concerning this and identified that as the gun that he had used that afternoon. Other bullets besides the one recovered from the victim's body were recovered from the door frame of the residence where this occurred. The bullets from the body and the bullets from the scene along with this firearm were sent to the Illinois State Police Crime Lab for analysis. Vickie Reels, a forensic scientist there, conducted experiments and determined to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that all of the bullets had been fired by the weapon identified by [defendant]. *** Jamario Freeman suffered no injuries as a result of this incident and the victim, Nazareth Lee, had nothing to do with the altercation or the previous altercation that led to the gunfire in this case."

Defendant did not object to the factual basis, and the trial court found it to be sufficient to support the plea.

¶ 9 The trial court questioned defendant as to whether his trial counsel answered all of his questions to his satisfaction, to which defendant indicated he had. The court accepted the plea, finding it to be knowingly and voluntarily made, and sentenced defendant to 30 years' imprisonment with credit for time served in presentence custody. The record shows defendant was later assessed certain fines and fees, including (1) a $5 Crime Stoppers assessment, (2) a $5 youth diversion assessment, (3) a $25 violent crime victims assistance assessment, and (4) a $10 arrestee's medical assessment.

¶ 10 After rendering its sentence, the trial court admonished defendant as to his appellate rights and his need to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea within 30 days to preserve his right to appeal. Defendant indicated he understood the court's admonishments.

¶ 11 C. Pro Se Postconviction Petition

¶ 12 In December 2011, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition, alleging, in part, he received ineffective assistance "[w]hen [t]rial counsel failed to file a [m]otion to [w]ithdraw his [g]uilty [p]lea, where he repeated [ly] asked his [attorney] to file an [a]ppeal." In support of his claim, defendant alleged (1) he notified counsel of his desire to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) he requested counsel to file "a [m]otion to withdraw his [p]lea and appeal," (3) counsel indicated he would visit him at the jail on a later date to discuss the reasons for withdrawal, (4) counsel never visited him at the jail, and (5) counsel did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant attached to his petition a personal affidavit, which realleged the above facts and added he felt like he was in a "no win" situation and accepted the plea based upon counsel's statement he did not think they would win the case if it went to trial.

¶ 13 That same month, the trial court advanced defendant's petition to the second stage of postconviction proceedings and appointed counsel to represent defendant.

¶ 14 D. Addendum to Defendant's Postconviction Petition

¶ 15 In September 2014, defendant, through appointed counsel, filed an addendum to his postconviction petition, which set forth additional independent claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In part, defendant alleged the following:

"1. Counsel failed to file a [m]otion to [s]uppress [d]efendant's ‘in [-]custody statements', even though [d]efendant informed his counsel *** that he was ‘under the influence of three-mind altering substances[’] and was not ‘completely cognizant’ at the time of his statements. ***

2. Counsel denied [d]efendant of his right to assert the defense, ‘defense of another’, by incorrectly informing the [d]efendant that ‘self-defense’ is only available if [d]efendant himself ‘was in harm's way’, and refused to further investigate or to even discuss the matter. By doing so, [c]ounsel deprived the [d]efendant of his right to present one of the defenses available to the charges outstanding against the [d]efendant.

3. *** That in counsel's effort to obtain [d]efendant's approval of the [plea] offer, counsel informed [d]efendant that, at trial, he would not be entitled to an instruction of a lesser included charge, at a time counsel knew that said possibility did exist. That by counsel's failure to fully inform [d]efendant of his choices and the law, counsel deprived [d]efendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel."

Defendant attached to his addendum his April 8, 2009, notarized statement, which...