People v. Coleman

2021 IL App (4th) 200170-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONDOUS COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-20-0170

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

October 13, 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 Macon County No. 18CF1833 Honorable Jeffrey S. Geisler, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Holder White and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

TURNER JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: Defendant failed to establish his trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress evidence based on defendant's initial seizure.

¶ 2 On December 17, 2019, a jury found defendant Leondous Coleman guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. On January 27, 2020, the trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison. After the trial court denied defendant's motion to reconsider sentence on March 16, 2020, defendant filed this appeal arguing his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he did not argue in a motion to suppress that defendant's initial seizure by the police was unconstitutional. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On December 21, 2018, the State charged defendant by information with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (15 grams or more but less than 100 grams of a substance containing cocaine) (720 ILCS 570/401(a) (2) (A) (West 2018)) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance (15 grams or more but less than 100 grams of a substance containing cocaine) (720 ILCS 570/402(a)(2)(A) (West 2018)).

¶ 5 On April 16, 2019, defendant filed a motion to suppress custodial statements he made to the police, alleging he was not provided his Miranda warnings (Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)). On June 6, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Officer Kyle Daniels of the Decatur Police Department testified the police received a report of shots fired in the area of 1660 North College Street in Decatur on December 19, 2018. Officer Daniels went to the area of the shooting and was provided a description of a suspect. While in the area, Officer Daniels saw an individual running down an alley. The individual did not match the description he was given of the shooter. However, the individual's behavior was suspicious. He was running and checking his surroundings. Although Officer Daniels had nothing to connect defendant to the shooting at that point, he decided he was going to stop defendant. After Officer Daniels eventually seized defendant and another officer arrived on the scene, Officer Daniels found a bag of cocaine in the area where he saw defendant emerge from an empty lot. Defendant was then transported to police headquarters and interviewed. Because defendant is not challenging the court's denial of his motion to suppress we need not discuss defendant's custodial interrogation here.

¶ 6 On December 16, 2019, defendant's trial began. After the State dismissed the unlawful possession charged, defense counsel told the trial court:

"I've talked to Mr. Coleman about the idea of filing a motion to suppress the stop itself. It was kind of unusual in the circumstances; but in my opinion, after looking at it and considering the law that I'm aware of, I don't think that such a motion would be successful. But I've discussed with him whether or not to file it, just for purposes of the record, and he indicates that he wants to go ahead and go with the trial rather than delaying the trial by filing a motion that I believe would not be beneficial to his cause anyway [.]" The court asked defendant if he had the opportunity to discuss filing a motion to suppress based on the stop itself. Defendant said he had. The court then asked defendant if he was ready to proceed to trial that day. Defendant said he was.

¶ 7 Detective Scott Marquis of the Decatur Police Department testified he was assigned to the Street Crimes Unit, which focuses on narcotics and firearm-related offenses and works with confidential sources. According to Detective Marquis the bag recovered from the lawn contained an ounce of cocaine. He did not ask for the bag to be tested for fingerprints or DNA evidence and did not know if this was done. Detective Marquis testified an ounce of cocaine is a fairly large amount.

¶ 8 Aaron Roemer, a forensic scientist for the Illinois State Police, determined the 26.8 grams of white powder recovered by Officer Daniels contained cocaine. Roemer was not aware of any request for DNA or fingerprint testing to be conducted on the original packaging which contained the cocaine.

¶ 9 Officer Daniels testified he is a K-9 handler and was on duty on December 19, 2018. At approximately 3:15 p.m., he and other police officers responded to a call of shots fired near 1660 North College. After patrolling the area for approximately 15 minutes and while on Sawyer Street, Officer Daniels saw an individual running southbound in an alley between Edward Street and College Street. Officer Daniels testified:

"My attention was drawn to him, one, because he was running in an alley. It's not typical. We're in a high crime area. Two, the way he was running, he was-it just wasn't your standard jog. His pace changed several times, you know, where he would come to an opening, slow down, look left to right, proceed and-yeah, so then that happens for several houses southbound. And then he turns eastbound through an empty lot towards Edward Street."

Officer Daniels drove in an attempt to get south of the individual who was running to intercept him. This individual turned out to be defendant. Although Officer Daniels knew defendant from prior encounters, he had not yet recognized him.

¶ 10 After turning north onto Edward Street from Olive Street, Officer Daniels was looking for defendant to emerge from the empty lot he had gone into. When defendant emerged from the lot, Officer Daniels and the man saw each other at the same time. Defendant stopped and was "frozen" in surprise. Defendant then looked straight ahead and walked out to the middle of Edward Street in a northeast direction. Officer Daniels pulled his squad car to the curb, planning to make contact with defendant. Based on defendant's actions, Officer Daniels was confident defendant had either just committed a crime or was preparing to commit a crime, and he planned to conduct a temporary seizure of defendant. As soon as Officer Allen opened the door to his police vehicle, defendant stopped abruptly and put his hands in the air before the officer said anything. When another police officer arrived on the scene, Officer Daniels walked out to the alley and the lot where he had seen defendant and found the bag containing cocaine. Officer Daniels then arrested defendant. The bag containing the cocaine was photographed and collected.

¶ 11 During an interview at the police station, Officer Daniels testified defendant accepted guilt for what had taken place and claimed ownership of the cocaine that was found. Defendant told Officer Daniels he had picked the cocaine up 45 minutes earlier and was delivering it to someone in a white vehicle that was supposed to be on Sawyer Street between Edward Street and College Street. Officer Daniels then contacted Detective Marquis.

¶ 12 On cross-examination, Officer Daniels stated he was patrolling an approximate 35-block area after he went to the location where gun shots had been reported. Officer Daniels admitted defendant's appearance did not completely match the description the police had been provided of the two suspects in the shooting. Further, Officer Daniels did not see defendant in possession of the drugs. However, after finding the drugs, Officer Daniels suspected the drugs belonged to defendant.

¶ 13 Defendant chose not to testify at trial and did not present any evidence.

¶ 14 The jury found defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver.

¶ 15 On December 19, 2019, defendant filed a motion for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On January 27, 2020, the trial court denied defendant's motion and sentenced defendant to nine years in prison consecutive to defendant's sentence in Macon County case No. 18-CF-655 with three years of mandatory supervised release. Defendant received credit for his time in custody from December 19, 2018, to January 26, 2020. On January 30, 2020, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence. On March 16, 2020, the trial court denied the motion.

¶ 16 This appeal followed.

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, defendant argues his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not challenging the legality of his initial seizure by Officer Daniels and not moving to suppress the drug evidence and his statements to the police as the fruit of the illegal seizure. Citing People v Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 22, 989 N.E.2d 192 the State notes the record was not developed for the purpose of litigating whether defendant's seizure was justified. However, the State does not argue the record before this court is inadequate to address defendant's arguments. Likewise, defendant does not argue the record is insufficient for this court to address defendant's constitutional challenge. Instead, defendant relies not only on Officer Daniels's testimony but also his written reports that are part of the record to try to establish defendant's initial seizure was unlawful. In his reply brief, defendant indicated he did not contend Officer Daniels's reports and testimony were inaccurate or lacked credibility. Thus, we will address whether defendant has...