People v. Bobo

2020 IL App (1st) 182628

167 N.E.3d 169

445 Ill.Dec. 492

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

v.Quentin BOBO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-18-2628

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed September 18, 2020

Rehearing denied October 27, 2020

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Michael Gentithes, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Clare Wesolik Connolly, and Sean Brady, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 Defendant, Quentin Bobo, appeals his convictions after a bench trial of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and being an armed habitual criminal (AHC), and his sentence of 11 years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court improperly denied defendant assistance of counsel during proceedings pursuant to People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), (2) the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a firearm where no physical evidence connected defendant to the recovered gun, (3) the State failed to prove his AHC conviction beyond a reasonable doubt where the State merely introduced a certified copy of his prior conviction for aggravated robbery, an offense not listed as a forcible felony as required by section 24-1.7 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code) ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2016) ), and (4) his sentence was excessive and based on an improper double enhancement. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon convictions, vacate his AHC conviction, and remand for resentencing.

¶ 2 I. JURISDICTION

¶ 3 The trial court sentenced defendant on August 29, 2018, and denied his motion to reconsider sentence on November 27, 2018. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on November 27, 2018. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) and Rule 606 (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case entered below.

¶ 4 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Defendant was charged by indictment with being an AHC, with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Prior to trial, the trial court granted defendant's request to represent himself. Defendant filed a pro se motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. At the hearing, Officer Andrew Kovac testified that on the morning of June 15, 2016, he was riding as a passenger in an unmarked police vehicle and was accompanied by two other officers. As they drove down Madison Street, Officer LaDonna Simmons observed a man with a gun walking in the other direction. They turned around, and he and Simmons saw defendant standing near the open driver's side door of a white car, pointing a black gun at another man while holding the man with his other hand. When defendant saw the officers, he dropped the gun a couple feet away. The other man ran toward the officers, and the officers recovered the gun. Officer Kovac testified that he saw two men in the alley. Officer Simmons testified that she saw defendant and one man on the driver's side of a white car and a third man near the front of the car who ran away from the scene. The trial court denied defendant's motion. Defendant subsequently requested that counsel be appointed to represent him and an assistant public defender was assigned to defendant.

¶ 6 At trial, Officer Kovac testified that on June 15, 2016, he was in an unmarked vehicle with Officers Mike Wroble and LaDonna Simmons, in the area of Madison Street and Mason Avenue in Chicago. He was riding in the front passenger seat of the vehicle when Officer Simmons alerted them about something she had observed. Officer Wroble turned the vehicle around and, as they travelled down the south alley of Madison Street, Officer Kovac observed "defendant holding a gun to an individual's head." He identified defendant in court. It was 10:37 a.m., and the officers were about 20 feet away. Nothing interfered with Officer Kovac's view of the incident.

¶ 7 The officers exited the vehicle and Officer Kovac looked at defendant "as he's shaking the individual with the gun to his head." The officers drew their weapons and announced themselves. Defendant looked in Officer Kovac's direction "and with his right hand flick[ed] the gun out of his hand." Officer Kovac testified that the gun, which had an extended magazine, "landed in a patch of grass" three to five feet away. Defendant released the man he was shaking, got into the driver's seat of a nearby vehicle, and closed the door. The officers approached and asked defendant to exit the vehicle. Defendant complied and was placed in handcuffs. The man defendant had been shaking was detained by Officer Simmons.

¶ 8 Officer Kovac recovered the gun from the area where he had seen defendant toss it from his hand. Officer Kovac removed a bullet from the chamber and placed the gun in a brown paper bag. He inventoried the weapon at the police station. A second firearm was recovered from a nearby garage after notification from a concerned citizen, and that weapon was also inventoried. The firearm Kovac recovered was tested for fingerprints. However, no ridge impressions were recovered from the gun.

¶ 9 The State presented certified copies of defendant's prior felony convictions for intimidation under case No. 06CR232401, and for aggravated robbery under case No. 05CR1295601. The parties also stipulated that defendant had never been issued a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, or a conceal and carry license by the State of Illinois. The parties further stipulated that the firearm recovered and inventoried under No. 13707844 was a black, .40-caliber Glock model 23 semiautomatic pistol, with black tape wrapped around the lower portion of the extended magazine. The firearm was loaded with at least 15 rounds of ammunition.

¶ 10 The State moved for a directed finding, which the trial court denied. After admonishment by the court, defendant testified in his own defense.

¶ 11 Defendant testified that on the morning of June 15, 2016, he was at his uncle Yarmell Ruffin's apartment on Mason Street. He was waiting to catch a bus so he could go home to Woodridge. Connected to the apartment building was a corner store where several people were outside selling drugs. As defendant exited the building, two officers approached and arrested defendant and two other men he did not know. After checking their computers, the officers learned that defendant was on parole and there was an investigatory alert for him. Defendant explained to the officers that he was visiting his uncle.

¶ 12 Defendant was transported to the police station and held for 48 hours, as the officers questioned him. They asked him about his uncle, about a nearby robbery, and about whether defendant knew about any guns or drugs stored in the area. The officers suggested that defendant could help himself by offering evidence. Defendant denied that he had a gun at any point that day, and he denied that officers questioned him about a gun at the scene. Defendant testified that Ruffin was inside when defendant was arrested.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, defendant stated that Officer Kovac was not present when he was arrested and that he did not recognize him. Defendant denied being arrested in the alley and denied having a dispute with his uncle that day.

¶ 14 The trial court "found Officer Kovac to be a credible witness and accept[ed] his version of the facts." Furthermore, defendant's testimony that he was asked about his uncle at the police station corroborated testimony that an investigation was "going on with regard to who was this other individual being held at gunpoint and why was the defendant doing that." The court found defendant "guilty on all charges."

¶ 15 Defendant filed a posttrial motion for a new trial and informed the trial court that he wished to discharge his attorney and proceed pro se . The court admonished defendant regarding the sentencing ranges for his offenses and found that he was entitled to have the assistance of counsel for posttrial motions and for sentencing. Defendant reiterated his wish to represent himself, and the court allowed him to proceed pro se . On September 25, 2017, defendant filed a motion for a new trial in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On December 1, 2017, the court held a Krankel hearing, which we set forth in detail below as we address defendant's issues on appeal. After numerous hearings, the trial court disposed of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims without appointing counsel to represent him. The court also denied defendant's motion for a new trial.

¶ 16 At the sentencing hearing, defendant was represented by private counsel. The trial court allowed an amendment to the presentence investigation report to reflect that on January 4, 2006, defendant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for three aggravated robbery convictions, rather than for just one conviction. In aggravation, the State argued that defendant's conduct holding a gun with an extended magazine to the head of a person on the streets of Chicago threatened serious harm to another person. The State also cited as aggravation defendant's six additional felony convictions apart from his convictions for aggravated robbery and intimidation that served as predicate offenses for defendant's AHC charge. The State argued that defendant's prior sentences did not deter him from committing other crimes and requested a sentence beyond the minimum of six years.

¶ 17 In mitigation, defense counsel argued that defendant had not committed any violent offenses in...