People v. Bell

2020 IL App (4th) 170804

145 N.E.3d 740

438 Ill.Dec. 204

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

v.Jaki BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0804

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

FILED February 13, 2020

Rehearing denied March 11, 2020

James E. Chadd, John M. McCarthy, and Edward J. Wittrig, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Randy Yedinak, State's Attorney, of Pontiac (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Luke McNeill, 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, Jaki Bell, appeals from his conviction and sentence for attempted escape from a penal institution. On appeal, defendant argues (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court failed to properly admonish the jury pursuant to principles of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012), (3) the trial court erred when it required him to be shackled during trial without first holding a Boose hearing ( People v. Boose , 66 Ill. 2d 261, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303 (1977) ), (4) the State improperly shifted its burden of proof during closing argument and constructed arguments unsupported by the evidence presented, and (5) the trial court erred when it sentenced him to a statutorily unauthorized two-year term of mandatory supervised release (MSR). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Information

¶ 4 In March 2016, the State charged defendant by information with attempted escape from a penal institution ( 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 31-6(a) (West 2012)). The State alleged, on or about December 22, 2013,

opwith the intent to commit the offense of [e]scape, * * * performed substantial steps toward the commission of that offense, in that he knowingly and without authority possessed a hand drawn map of the Pontiac Correctional Center [ (Pontiac) ], he placed a dummy in his bed, and he was unresponsive to direct orders by [c]orrectional [o]fficers, in an attempt to escape from [Pontiac]."

¶ 5 B. Jury Trial

¶ 6 In August 2017, the trial court held a two-day jury trial. Defendant, an inmate, proceeded pro se .

¶ 7 1. Defendant's Restraints

¶ 8 Prior to commencing the trial, the trial court addressed the matter of defendant's restraints:

"THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bell, we need to do something about your restraints. How has he been today?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER: He has been all right.

THE COURT: All right. So if we remove his hand restraints, do you believe you will be able to keep him under control?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Then, Mr. Bell, we will remove your hand restraints. Your leg shackles will still remain. All right? But the jury will not be able to see that. Okay? You should not call attention to the fact that you still have the leg shackles. And everybody will work from their tables as far as questioning of the jurors and the trial.

All right. Anything further, anything you need to know before we get started?

[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, is it okay if we stand when the jury comes in?

THE COURT: That would be the polite thing to do, yes. Can you do that without us hearing your shackles, though?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, then we will give this a try and if it becomes a problem, we will change."

¶ 9 On the second day of defendant's trial, the trial court again addressed the matter of defendant's restraints:

"THE COURT: All right. And you are asking that your cuffs be removed; is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: How has he been today, any problem?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER: No.

THE COURT: If I have the cuffs removed, are you going to be able to control him?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Then I would ask that you remove his cuffs."

¶ 10 2. Voir Dire

¶ 11 During voir dire , the trial court explained to the venire the four principles contained in Rule 431(b). After explaining the principles, the court asked each prospective juror if he or she "accepted" the principles. Each prospective juror responded in the affirmative. Defendant questioned the venire and asserted challenges to prospective jurors.

¶ 12 3. Trial Conferences

¶ 13 After selecting a jury but before the presentation of evidence, the trial court admonished the jurors as follows:

"Now, from time to time we may have objections or we may have the need for a conference. The acoustics in this particular courtroom are outstanding. There is no way that I can have people stand here and argue the case with me. You would hear every word of it. And to keep the case just as clean as possible, I may ask you to step out. That will cause a little bit of a delay. Don't hold that against the parties. That is my decision. You can hold it against me if you wish. But we may have those conferences from time to time."

¶ 14 4. State's Case-in-Chief

¶ 15 In its case-in-chief, the State called three witnesses: Carl Colwell, Jacob Dalton, and Robin Lopeman. Defendant cross-examined each of the State's witnesses. During its case-in-chief, the State requested and received permission to approach the witnesses for the purpose of showing them various exhibits.

¶ 16 Colwell testified he was employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) and had been for seven years. As part of his employment, he served as a correctional officer at Pontiac Correctional Center (Pontiac).

¶ 17 On December 22, 2013, at 11 p.m., Officer Colwell conducted a "count," which was a procedure to ensure inmates were inside their assigned cells. Officer Colwell testified defendant, at the time, was an inmate assigned to cell No. 123. Officer Colwell knocked on an observation window on defendant's cell door for the purpose of obtaining a verbal response from defendant. Defendant did not respond. Officer Colwell looked through the observation window and noticed a "homemade * * * dummy" lying on the cell bed and partially covered. Officer Colwell identified State's exhibit No. 1 as a photograph of the dummy he observed inside defendant's cell. Officer Colwell did not see defendant through the observation window. Officer Colwell contacted the cell house supervisor, Lieutenant Jacob Dalton.

¶ 18 Officer Colwell testified Lieutenant Dalton responded to defendant's cell and tried to get a verbal response from defendant. Defendant did not respond. Officer Colwell testified Lieutenant Dalton also ordered defendant to "cuff up." Defendant did not comply. Officer Colwell testified that he attempted to open the sliding cuffing hatch on the cell door, which allowed correctional officers to cuff inmates from outside the cell and observed the hatch had been jammed with plastic sporks. Lieutenant Dalton requested the assistance of the prison's tactical unit, an extension team used when inmates refused to comply with orders. Officer Colwell left before the tactical unit arrived.

¶ 19 On cross-examination, Officer Colwell testified he did not recall if he ever wrote defendant "a ticket" prior to December 22, 2013.

¶ 20 Lieutenant Dalton testified he worked at Pontiac, a "penitentiary," and had done so for 20 years. He had been a lieutenant since November 2013.

¶ 21 On December 22, 2013, Lieutenant Dalton responded to Officer Colwell's request for assistance at cell No. 123. Upon arrival, Lieutenant Dalton looked through the observation window and noticed a "homemade dummy" lying on the bed. The dummy was wearing a state-issued segregation jumpsuit and a blue hat and had a white sheet pulled up to its chest. Lieutenant Dalton did not see defendant through the observation window. Lieutenant Dalton testified he gave several direct orders, such as "[s]tep up" and "[c]ome to the door." Defendant did not respond. Lieutenant Dalton testified the cuffing hatch was jammed with plastic sporks when he attempted to open the hatch.

¶ 22 Based on his observations and because he was unable to obtain a response from defendant, Lieutenant Dalton requested the assistance from Pontiac's tactical unit. Lieutenant Dalton testified he was in the "cellhouse" when the tactical unit arrived. The tactical unit assembled, put on their gear, and went to defendant's cell. Lieutenant Dalton testified the tactical unit ordered defendant "to come to the door, cuff up," the defendant "complied with that order," and the tactical unit "removed him from the cell."

¶ 23 After defendant's removal, Lieutenant Dalton went to defendant's cell but did not enter it as he wanted Pontiac's investigative unit to look at the cell for a possible crime scene. Lieutenant Dalton testified he secured defendant's cell.

¶ 24 Lieutenant Dalton identified State's exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 as two photographs of the dummy he observed inside defendant's cell. Lieutenant Dalton testified the photographs were taken the day after the incident when the investigative unit went into defendant's cell. State's exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence over no objection and published to the jury.

¶ 25 State's exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 are two photographs of what appears to be a homemade dummy lying in a cell bed.

¶ 26 Lieutenant Dalton testified the investigative unit discovered a homemade drawing, or map, of part of Pontiac inside defendant's cell on December 23, 2013, which Lieutenant Dalton had, at some point, the opportunity to observe after it was taken from the cell. Lieutenant Dalton identified State's exhibit No. 3 as a photograph of the map discovered inside defendant's cell. Lieutenant Dalton testified the drawing depicted a "surprisingly * * * decent overhead view from the [n]orth [h]ouse" of Pontiac. On cross-examination, Lieutenant Dalton testified he did not personally see the map inside defendant's cell.

¶ 27 On cross-examination, Lieutenant Dalton testified he did not try to open the cuffing hatch, as he saw the sporks were blocking it. He also testified he did not personally secure the cell but ordered it to be...