People v. Campbell

2021 IL App 190525-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADAM CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-19-0525

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

September 27, 2021

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County No. 18CF143 Honorable Jennifer H. Bauknecht, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HARRIS, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for aggravated battery of a nurse and (2) defendant forfeited his sentencing challenge and failed to demonstrate, in the alternative, that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant, Adam Campbell, was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4), (11) (West 2016)), and subsequently sentenced to 24 months of conditional discharge. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the State failed to prove him guilty of one of the counts beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) we must vacate his sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court sentenced him under the mistaken belief it imposed the statutory minimum sentence, or alternatively, counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the court of the correct sentencing range. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In May 2018, the State charged defendant by information with aggravated battery of a nurse (id. § 12-3.05(d)(11)) (count I) and aggravated battery of a peace officer (id. § 12-3.05(d)(4)) (count II). Defendant only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to count I, and we therefore limit our discussion of the evidence presented at trial to that count. Count I alleged defendant "grabbed Kim Kodat about the hand and squeezed, knowing Kim Kodat to be a nurse *** engaged in the performance of her duties as a nurse."

¶ 5 Defendant's case proceeded to a bench trial. We discuss only the testimony of Kim Kodat. Kodat testified that on May 15, 2018, she was employed as a licensed practical nurse assigned to the emergency room of St. James Hospital in Pontiac. At approximately 5 a.m., police officers brought defendant to the emergency room to receive treatment for a head injury. Kodat testified she was wearing" [n]ursing scrubs" at this time and she identified herself to defendant as a nurse. Kodat explained that defendant had sustained an "unknown head injury" and was "highly intoxicated." Defendant initially cooperated with hospital staff but became "very uncooperative" when they attempted to perform a computerized tomography (CT) scan. The technicians were unable to complete the CT scan, so they brought defendant back to the emergency room.

¶ 6 Kodat testified that per hospital policy, an intoxicated patient with head injuries cannot refuse treatment because the patient is unable to discern the extent of his injuries and "if something happened to him and we didn't treat him and just let him go, *** the hospital would be liable." Hospital staff explained this policy to defendant and informed him he could not leave. At this point "he got aggressive and wanting to leave; and we had to restrain him to our cot per our doctor's order and per our policy when we have somebody like that that we can't control." Kodat further elaborated that as she and three officers were attempting to hold defendant down and put the restraints on him, "he grabbed my hand or my wrist and wouldn't let go. The officer had to physically remove his hand from mine."

¶ 7 Following presentation of the evidence, the trial court found defendant guilty of both counts.

¶ 8 At defendant's sentencing hearing, the State presented the presentence investigation report (PSI) and no additional evidence in aggravation. According to the PSI, defendant's criminal history consisted of a 2011 Class A misdemeanor for cannabis possession and a 2012 petty offense of public intoxication. The PSI indicated defendant presented a moderate risk to reoffend due to substance abuse issues. As for mitigation, defendant called three witnesses who testified he was not a violent or aggressive person. The State recommended a sentence of 24 months' probation and 180 days in jail, while defendant requested 24 months' conditional discharge with stayed jail time.

¶ 9 Before sentencing defendant, the trial court discussed the applicable mitigating and aggravating factors at length. In mitigation, the court found (1) defendant did not have a significant criminal history, (2) he did not contemplate his conduct would cause serious harm, and (3) his conduct resulted from circumstances unlikely to reoccur. In aggravation, the court found (1) defendant's conduct threatened serious harm and (2) the need for deterrence. After balancing the applicable factors, the court stated the following:

"THE COURT: Considering all these factors, and I know the State has not argued for DOC time because the statute does tell the Court to start with probation on a felony offense such as this, but I do think given all of these things the more severe punishment for you at this point is going to be the felony record on your offense.

You know, you've lost your job I think probably because of this case. You now have a felony record. That's going to stay on your record for some time and for somebody who's pretty much a law-abiding citizen, that's going to cause you a lot of problems. You need to find another job, and you're going to be strapped by having this felony conviction on your record. To me, that's a pretty severe punishment for this incident that happened.

So for those reasons, I am going to place you on conditional discharge rather than probation for a period of 24 months."

¶ 10 Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and a motion to reconsider sentence. In the latter motion, he argued his sentence was excessive in light of the mitigating evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. At the hearing on defendant's motions, the following relevant exchange occurred:

"THE COURT: Did you want to argue [the motion to reconsider sentence] ?

MR. RIPLEY [(DEFENSE COUNSEL)]: Your Honor, we will argue it; but we would just rest on the motion.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure having found him guilty that there's much lesser sentence that I could impose.

MR. REGNIER: [(ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY)]: That would be the State's argument, Judge.

THE COURT: So I did impose the minimum sentence. I understand there's the motion for new trial so I appreciate that. But I believe the Court properly considered all of the factors in mitigation and in so doing imposed the minimum sentence required by law. So the motion to reconsider the sentence is denied because I can't impose any lower sentence."

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, defendant argues (1) the State failed to prove him guilty of aggravated battery of a nurse beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) we must vacate his sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court mistakenly believed it imposed the statutory minimum sentence, or, alternatively, counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the court of the correct sentencing range.

¶ 14 A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 15 Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for aggravated battery of a nurse (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d) (11) (West 2016)) because the State failed to prove Kodat was performing her duties as a nurse when he grabbed her. According to defendant, to prove Kodat's act of physically restraining him was done in performance of her duties, the State had to show her actions complied with the Nurse Practice Act (Nurse Act) (225 ILCS 65/50-1 et seq. (West 2016)) and the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 2016)). Alternatively defendant argues the State failed to prove he knew Kodat was performing her duties as a nurse.

¶ 16 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We will not set aside a conviction on appeal "unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 261, 478 N.E.2d 267, 276 (1985).

¶ 17 As stated, defendant argues the State failed to prove Kodat was performing her duties as a nurse when she attempted to restrain him. Defendant cites to People v. Smith, 342 Ill.App.3d 289, 794 N.E.2d 408 (2003), in support of his argument. In Smith, the inmate defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction for aggravated battery of a correctional officer (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(6) (West 2000)) because the State failed to prove the officer was performing his official duties at the relevant time. Smith, 342 Ill.App.3d at 290. According to the defendant, the correctional officer called her insulting names, "play[ed] chicken" with her breakfast tray, and threatened to poison her food. Id. at 292. In response, the defendant threw a liquid at the officer. Id. at 291. On appeal, the defendant argued the correctional officer could not have been performing his official duties because he "was engaged in harassing or provoking [her]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 293. This court rejected that argument on the basis the correctional...