People v. Caetano-Anolles

2016 IL App (4th) 150053-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEREK CAETANO-ANOLLES, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-15-0053

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

May 18, 2016

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).

Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County

No. 14CM117

Honorable Richard P. Klaus, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.

Justice Pope concurred in the judgment.

Justice Harris specially concurred.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court properly found the stalking no contact order was unambiguous and defendant could not present evidence he interpreted that order differently from its unambiguous language.

¶ 2 In May 2014, the State charged defendant, Derek Caetano-Anolles, by information with one count of a violation of a stalking no contact order (740 ILCS 21/125 (West 2014)) in case No. 13-OP-566 (Frimel v. Caetano-Anolles, No. 13-OP-566 (Champaign Co. Cir. Ct.)). Before defendant's August 2014 jury trial, the Champaign County circuit court (1) found the stalking no contact order was unambiguous; (2) barred defendant from presenting the testimony of his parents, Gloria and Gustavo Caetano-Anolles, and his former attorney, Harvey Welch; and (3) prohibited defense counsel from arguing defendant interpreted the stalking no contact order differently from its unambiguous language. During defense counsel's opening statements, the court called a sidebar conference and again discussed what defense counsel could not do. Thereafter, defendant agreed to a stipulated bench trial. The court found defendant guilty and ordered him to pay a $220 fine. Defendant filed a posttrial motion, which the court denied.

¶ 3 Defendant appeals, asserting (1) the stalking no contact order was ambiguous; (2) the circuit court erred by finding defendant's understanding of the stalking no contact order was irrelevant; (3) the court erred by sua sponte interrupting defendant's opening statement to the jury, which caused defendant's jury waiver to be involuntary; (4) the court erred by barring the testimony of Welch and defendant's parents; (5) the court erred by denying defendant's motions for a directed verdict; and (6) the court erred by denying defendant's motions to reconsider the evidentiary rulings and his posttrial motion. We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. No. 13-OP-566

¶ 6 In November 2013, Aaron Frimel filed a verified petition for a stalking no contact order against defendant. For his alternative address for service, Frimel listed "600 South Mathews 405RAL Urbana IL 61801." In the remedies section of his petition, Frimel stated the address for his place of employment was "600 South Mathews Urbana, IL 61801." On December 17, 2013, Judge Holly Clemons held a hearing, at which defendant defaulted by failing to appear. Judge Clemons entered a plenary stalking no contact order, which ordered, inter alia, defendant "to stay at least 100 feet away from petitioner's workplace at 600 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801." On January 13, 2014, defendant filed a motion to vacate the December 2013 plenary stalking no contact order. On January 28, 2014, Judge Clemons held a hearing on defendant's motion to vacate. At the hearing, defendant was represented by BakuPatel. The court granted the motion to vacate and entered an emergency stalking no contact order, which was valid from January 28, 2014, through February 11, 2014. The order also ordered defendant "to stay at least 100 feet away from Petitioner's workplace at 600 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801." The aforementioned order is the one defendant is accused of violating. On February 11, 2014, Judge Clemons modified the January 2014 emergency order by extending it to April 16, 2014, and adding the following language: "paragraph 5 of the order is modified to exempt the north wing of the Chemical Life Sciences Building located at 601 S. Goodwin, Urbana, IL." In July 2014, Judge Clemons entered a plenary stalking no contact order, ordering defendant "to stay at least 100 fee[t] away from 600 South Mathews, Urbana, Illinois."

¶ 7 B. This Case

¶ 8 The State had originally charged defendant in February 2014 with violating an order of protection but later obtained dismissal of that charge. The May 2014 charge asserted defendant, having been served with a stalking no contact order in case No. 13-OP-566, did knowingly commit an act that was prohibited by the stalking no contact order, in that he "entered a space within 100 feet of Aaron Frimel's place of employment located at Roger Adams Lab, 600 S. Mathews, Urbana, Illinois." Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine to bar the testimony of Welch, whom defendant had originally hired to represent him on Frimel's petition, as to what Welch told defendant the order prohibited.

¶ 9 On August 27, 2014, Judge Richard P. Klaus addressed the State's motion in limine before beginning defendant's jury trial. Defense counsel asserted Welch would testify he had a lengthy conversation with defendant in the presence of defendant's parents about the December 2013 hearing on Frimel's petition for a stalking no contact order. Defendant pointed out to Welch an order preventing him from being within 500 feet of 600 South Mathews Avenuewould prevent defendant from going to work. During the conversation, it was decided Welch would ask for a continuance at the hearing because defendant was to be out of the country. If the continuance was denied, Welch was to agree to an order for defendant to stay 100 feet away from petitioner's office within the building at 600 South Mathews Avenue. Welch's office sent defendant a copy of the December 17, 2013, order, but Welch never discussed the order with defendant. Defense counsel argued that testimony went to defendant's mental state of whether he knowingly violated the order. Defense counsel also asserted the stalking no contact order was unclear. Judge Klaus found the January 2014 emergency stalking no contact order was unambiguous and granted the State's motion in limine. Judge Klaus also noted defendant could present neither his testimony nor the testimony of his parents about what Welch stated.

¶ 10 After jury selection, Judge Klaus noted he let defense counsel question the potential jurors about the potential of the ambiguity in interpreting documents because the State did not object. However, Judge Klaus wanted defense counsel to know the court's ruling was the order was not ambiguous as a matter of law, which was a matter for the court and not the jury, and it would not allow evidence as to defendant's interpretation of the order. Defense counsel again strongly asserted the court's ruling was incorrect. After a recess, defense counsel again argued the court's ruling was erroneous. The court again stated defense counsel could not argue to the jury that defendant interpreted the order to be something different than what it was. The court confirmed with defense counsel that all defense counsel could argue was the act itself did not violate the order and then it was the jury's interpretation "of what that means."

¶ 11 During opening statements, defense counsel began to describe where petitioner's office was located within the building at 600 South Mathews Avenue, and Judge Klaus sua sponte asked the attorneys to approach. A sidebar conference with the jury still in the courtroomensued. After awhile, Judge Klaus asked the jury to go back to the jury room, noting "it is clear to me that perhaps things that I thought were clear are not clear." The conference with the attorneys continued, and Judge Klaus again explained the interpretation of the stalking no contact order was an issue of law for the court, not the jury. After the conference ended, defendant decided to waive his right to a jury. The court admonished defendant before accepting his jury waiver.

¶ 12 On August 29, 2014, the circuit court held a stipulated bench trial. The parties stipulated to two pages of facts and the admission of the University of Illinois police report and the surveillance video. Defendant did not stipulate to the sufficiency of the evidence and submitted offers of proof as to his testimony and the testimony of Welch and defendant's parents. At the parties' request, the court took judicial notice of the entire court file for case No. 13-OP-566. After the presentation of the aforementioned evidence, defendant made a motion to reconsider the court's evidentiary rulings, which the court denied. He also moved for a directed finding. The court found the State proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant waived his right to a presentence investigation report, and the court ordered him to pay a $220 fine.

¶ 13 On September 29, 2014, defendant filed a motion to reconsider and for the entry of an acquittal or reinstatement of the right to a jury trial. In December 2014, defendant filed a supplement to his motion to reconsider. After a January 8, 2015, hearing, the circuit court denied defendant's motion and supplemental motion to reconsider. On January 20, 2015, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in sufficient compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013), and thus we have jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 In this case, the State charged defendant with violating a stalking no contact order. When a person is found to be a victim of stalking, a no contact order is issued against the offending party. 740 ILCS 21/80(a) (West 2014). A no contact order prohibits the party against whom it is ordered from threatening to commit or committing stalking or having any contact with the petitioner, with additional injunctive relief to be ordered by the court. 740 ILCS 21/80(b) (West 2014). "An initial knowing violation of a stalking no contact order is a Class A misdemeanor." 740 ILCS 21/125 (West 201...