People v. Brooks

242 N.E.3d 247

2023 IL App (1st) 200435

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

v.Tramell BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-20-0435

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FIRST DIVISION.

Filed September 25, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 2018-CR-1 18301, Honorable Stanley Sacks, Judge Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Rebecca I. Levy, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, David Iskowich, and Susanna Bucaro, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 After a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant, Trammell Brooks, was found guilty of being an armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2016)) and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him, arguing that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed a firearm, which resulted in his conviction as an armed habitual criminal. In addition, the defendant argues, for the first time on appeal, that the armed habitual criminal statute (id.) under which he was convicted is unconstitutional, as applied to him, as it violates the second amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II). Specifically, the defendant contends that under the hew test for evaluating gun laws established by the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass.’n, v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022), there is no historical tradition of prohibiting firearm possession by nonviolent felons. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that because his armed habitual criminal conviction was entirely based upon his possession of a firearm after he had been convicted of two prior nonviolent felonies, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In January 2018, the defendant was charged with one count of being an armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2016)) (count I) and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) (id. § 24-1.1(a)) (count II and III), on the basis that he "knowingly and intentionally possessed" a .32-caliber revolver after having been previously convicted of two qualifying felonies, namely manufacture or delivery of "other amount of narcotics Schedule I and II" (in case No. 08-CR-2114501) and UPWF (in case No. 09-CR-0968201). In addition, the defendant was charged with one count of violating the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2016)) for failing to have in his possession a firearm owners identification (FOID) card while possessing the .32-caliber revolver (count IV).

¶ 4 On November 18, 2019, the defendant proceeded with a bench trial at which the following relevant evidence was adduced. Three Chicago police officers testified that at about 5 p.m. on December 18, 2017, together with numerous units from the Maywood and the Chicago Police Departments, they executed a search warrant at 1914 Railroad Avenue, Apartment 1E, in Maywood, Illinois.

¶ 5 Officer John Zinchuk first testified that he was assigned as the breach and evidence officer and that his duties included using a ram to open the entry door, as well as photographing the apartment and inventorying any recovered evidence.

¶ 6 Officer Zinchuk explained that when he arrived at the scene, he observed that the apartment was on the first floor of "a corner multiunit" building. Maywood police officers were assigned to the front door, while Chicago police officers, including Officer Zinchuk were assigned to the back. Officer Zinchuk knocked on the back door and announced his office but received no response. After obtaining permission from his supervisor, Officer Zinchuk forced open the door using the ram. Because other officers entered the premises first to secure it, he was the last to enter.

¶ 7 Once inside, Officer Zinchuk observed the defendant being detained "in the living room/dining room area near the bedroom door." Officer Zinchuk described the residence as a small one-bedroom, one bathroom apartment with the kitchen, living room, and dining room all in "one wide open space." He stated that apart from the defendant and a small dog, there was no one else inside the apartment.

¶ 8 Officer Zinchuk took photographs of the premises before helping the other officers conduct a systematic search of the apartment. During this search, on a bookshelf inside the bedroom, Officer Zinchuk discovered a digital scale; a jar with a "a green leafy substance," which he suspected was marijuana; "narcotics packaging"; and a plate with white powder, which he suspected was cocaine.¹

¶ 9 As evidence officer, he was then informed of other contraband that was discovered inside the apartment. Officer Zinchuk photographed and inventoried all the recovered items, including, inter alia, a safe, which was discovered in the bedroom. According to Officer Zinchuk, inside the safe, other officers found a box with a loaded revolver, and numerous letters addressed to the defendant. At trial, Officer Zinchuk identified photographs of the scene and the recovered contraband.

¶ 10 On cross-examination, Officer Zinchuk acknowledged that while inside the apartment, he did not hear the defendant say anything about the recovered revolver. He also admitted that he did not request that the revolver be checked for fingerprints or DNA.

¶ 11 Chicago police officer Edwin Utreras next testified that on December 18, 2017, he was the first to enter the apartment through the back door after it was breached by Officer Zinchuk. Once inside, he placed the defendant into custody and proceeded to search the apartment.

¶ 12 Officer Utreras agreed with Officer Zinchuk that the apartment contained only one bedroom. He further stated that, among other things, inside that bedroom he discovered a safe underneath the bed. According to Officer Utreras, the safe was unlocked, so all he had to do was turn the knob to open it. Inside the safe, the officer discovered a blue box with a small letter "G," which contained a loaded .32-caliber revolver. In addition, he discovered several documents with the defendant’s name, including (1) the defendant’s birth certificate; (2) a ComEd bill; (3) a Nicor bill; and (4) letters from the Internal Revenue Service, Computer Systems Institute, Illinois Client Enrollment Services, and Sexner and Associates, Attorneys at Law. All of these documents were directed to the defendant at the Maywood apartment address.

¶ 13 Officer Utreras acknowledged that the safe also contained a second letter from the Internal Revenue Service addressed to the defendant but at a different address, namely 211 North Kolin Avenue in Chicago. The officer also admitted that at least one of the documents he found inside the safe was from 2014, three years before the search warrant was executed. He could not recall the dates on any of the remaining documents or whether any of the letters addressed to the defendant had been opened before the police arrived.

¶ 14 Officer Utreras further testified that all the items recovered at the scene were subsequently inventoried and photographed by Officer Zinchuk. Officer Utreras then identified photographs of the safe and the revolver. He also identified photographs of the defendant’s birth certificate, and the letters addressed to the defendant, which were found in the safe.

¶ 15 Officer Utreras next averred that while still at the apartment, at about 7:30 p.m., after reading the defendant his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)), the defendant told him ("in summary, not verbatim") that he needed the revolver for his protection. On cross-examination, the officer admitted that he never wrote down the defendant’s statement and that it was not recorded by his body-worn camera. He further acknowledged that he did not ask the defendant any follow-up questions about the revolver.

¶ 16 Chicago police officer Mark Hernandez next testified that on December 18, 2017, he was part of the back door entry team executing the search warrant at 1914 Railroad Avenue, Apartment 1E, in Maywood. Officer Hernandez averred that once inside the apartment, he was assigned to watch the defendant while other officers searched the premises. Officer Hernandez performed a pat down search of the defendant upon which he discovered a set of keys inside the defendant’s pocket. Officer Hernandez tested the keys on the apartment’s front door and determined that they unlocked it. At trial, the officer identified a photograph of the recovered keys, showing that they fit inside the front door lock.

¶ 17 After the testimony of the three officers, the State introduced into evidence the photographs taken by Officer Zinchuk and the physical documents that were discovered inside the safe.² The State also introduced into evidence the certified convictions for the defendant’s two prior felony convictions, namely: (1) manufacture or delivery of "other amount of narcotics, Schedule I and II" (case No. 08-CR-2114501), and (2) UPWF (case No. 09-CR-0968201).³

¶ 18 After the State rested, the defense moved for a directed finding. The circuit court granted the motion as to count IV of the indictment, charging the defendant with a violation of the FOID Card Act (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2016)). The court found that the State failed to prove the defendant guilty of this charge because it presented no evidence whatsoever that, at the time the warrant was executed, the defendant did not possess a FOID card.

¶ 19 Subsequently, in its case-and-chief, the defense presented the testimony of the defendant’s brother, Keiton Webster (Webster)....