People v. D.S. (In re D.S.)

2018 IL App (4th) 180538-U

In re D.S., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.S., Respondent-Appellant).

NO. 4-18-0538

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

December 28, 2018

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 the Circuit Court of Vermilion County

No. 18JD5

Honorable Thomas M. O'Shaughnessy, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Harris and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The State's evidence was sufficient to prove respondent was the shooter; the court's oral sentence pronouncement controls and did not violate the one-act, one-crime rule; and this court declines to address respondent's moot argument related to the detention hearing.

¶ 2 In January 2018, the State filed a petition for an adjudication of wardship, alleging respondent, D.S. (born in 2002), was a delinquent minor because he committed two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2) (West 2016)), one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(2), (a)(3)(C) (West Supp. 2017)), one count of unlawful possession of firearms (720 ILCS 5/24-3.1(a)(1) (West 2016)), one count of reckless discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.5(a) (West 2016)), and one count of aggravated assault (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1) (West 2016)). After a February 2018 detention hearing, the Vermilion County circuit court found respondent should be detained because (1) he was likely to flee the jurisdiction and (2) it was necessary for respondent's protection or the protection of the person or property of the public. At the May 2018 adjudicatory hearing, the court found respondent was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all six offenses. In July 2018, the court committed respondent for aggravated discharge of a firearm to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate term, not to exceed the period for which an adult could be committed for a Class 1 felony or his twenty-first birthday, whichever occurs first. The written commitment order listed all six offenses. Respondent filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the court denied.

¶ 3 Respondent appeals, asserting (1) the State's evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of all six charges; (2) if the State's evidence was sufficient, the written commitment order should be amended to reflect he is being committed based on only the most serious offense because the one-act, one-crime rule applies to the other offenses; and (3) the circuit court failed to make the necessary findings to support its detention order. We affirm and remand with directions.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The allegations in the State's wardship petition arose from a January 6, 2018, shooting of a vehicle that was parked somewhere in the area in front of 706 and 708 Commercial Street in Danville, Illinois. Cheyenne S. was sitting inside the vehicle at the time of the shooting.

¶ 6 In February 2018, the circuit court admonished respondent and held a detention hearing. After admonishing respondent, the State indicated it sought to detain respondent. The court asked for a proffer, and the State described the testimony Danville police officer Jacob Troglia would provide about the shooting incident. Defense counsel did not make a proffer. The court found probable cause existed to believe respondent was delinquent. The court furtherfound an immediate and urgent necessity existed for respondent's protection and the protection of the person and property of the public. Upon the court's questioning, the State indicated respondent had been arrested in Champaign County. The court then found respondent was likely to leave the jurisdiction of the court and concluded respondent should be detained pending adjudication. After an April 26, 2018, hearing, the court released respondent from detention over the State's objections.

¶ 7 In May 2018, the circuit court held the adjudicatory hearing. The State presented the testimony of (1) Cheyenne S., the victim; (2) Beth Chowning, Cheyenne S.'s probation officer; (3) Troy Nipper, Danville police officer; (4) Officer Troglia; (5) Dawn Hartshorn, Danville police detective; (6) Danielle Lewallen, Danville police detective; and (7) Deanara Washington, who resided at 709 Commercial Street. Respondent did not call any witnesses. He did present an aerial photograph of the 700 block of Commercial Street. On the photograph is a line, which was drawn to depict the distance from shell casings to the front of Cheyenne S.'s car. The line purportedly shows a distance of 59 feet.

¶ 8 Cheyenne S. testified that, in January 2018, she lived at her grandmother's house, which was located at 708 Commercial Street. Between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. that night, Cheyenne S. was sitting in a car parked somewhere in the area in front of 706 and 708 Commercial Street. Cheyenne S. was playing on her cellular telephone and smoking. She observed around a dozen people on respondent's porch, which was located at 709 Commercial Street. Cheyenne S. recognized respondent and his friend Marcus J. in the group of people on the porch. At that time, Cheyenne S. had lived across the street from respondent for a few months, and respondent and Marcus J. attended the same school that Cheyenne S. attended.

¶ 9 Cheyenne S. had gone into her grandmother's home and got back into the car.

The car was running, and Cheyenne S. had turned the headlights off. After about five minutes, Cheyenne S. looked up to turn her dash light off and saw respondent and a friend standing in front of her car. Respondent was about five or six feet away from Cheyenne S. The friend was either John T. or Marcus J. Cheyenne S. did not see respondent come off the porch. Respondent had a gun in his hand, and he "just showed it." Cheyenne S. identified respondent in the courtroom. Cheyenne S. further testified that, when she saw the gun, she ducked down in her seat. She did see respondent move toward his house, which was the direction of the driver's side of the car. After about three or four seconds, Cheyenne S. heard bullets hit her car, and then the car's window busted. Besides respondent and his friend, everyone else stayed on the porch. After the gunshots stopped, Cheyenne S. remained in her car until her cousin came and got her. Cheyenne S. then went inside her grandmother's house.

¶ 10 When the police arrived and asked her who did it, Cheyenne S. showed the officers photographs of respondent and his friend John on Facebook. Cheyenne S. identified respondent as the shooter. Cheyenne S. told Officer Troglia she saw respondent and another male run between 709 and 707 Commercial Street after the gunshots were fired. She later testified she was not sure if they ran between 709 and 707 because she ducked down in the car. Because she was ducked down, Cheyenne S. did not see respondent shoot the gun. Cheyenne S. told Detective Hartshorn that, if respondent did not shoot the gun, then respondent's friend did. Moreover, Cheyenne S. told Detective Hartshorn she was "high as hell" the night of the shooting and was not paying attention because she was scrolling through Facebook.

¶ 11 Cheyenne S. testified she smoked cannabis when she returned to her car five minutes before the shooting. Cheyenne S. testified she was thinking clearly the night of the shooting and was able to clearly view her surroundings. Cheyenne S. had no doubt in her mindrespondent was the person with the gun on January 6, 2018. Additionally, Cheyenne S. testified respondent and Cheyenne S.'s boyfriend, Deontae B., were feuding at the time of the shootings. Respondent "was gang," and her boyfriend was squad. The two groups were "beefing" over some dead people. Moreover, Cheyenne S. had been recently arrested for theft involving lying to the victim. The State did not make a deal with Cheyenne S. in exchange for her testimony.

¶ 12 Officer Nipper testified that, around 8:45 p.m. on January 6, 2018, he was dispatched to the area of 708 Commercial Street for shots fired. He spoke with Cheyenne S., who directed him to the area where she saw the suspects run, which was between 709 and 707 Commercial Street. Officer Nipper entered the residence at 709 Commercial Street and spoke with Washington. He observed "Marco" J. was also inside the residence.

¶ 13 Officer Nipper returned to 708 Commercial Street and again spoke with Cheyenne S. Cheyenne S. identified the shooter by noting his nickname was "Demoe" and pointing him out in photographs on Facebook. Cheyenne S. also told Officer Nipper her boyfriend and respondent were "beefing" over gang stuff. Additionally, Officer Nipper testified Cheyenne S. did not appear to be under the influence of drugs when he spoke with her.

¶ 14 Officer Troglia also testified he was dispatched to the 700 block of Commercial Street for shots fired. When he arrived on the scene, Officer Troglia observed a Chevrolet Impala parked in front of 708 Commercial Street with multiple bullet holes. The vehicle was still running. Cheyenne S. came out onto the front porch of 708 Commercial Street. Officer Troglia observed Cheyenne S. had glass embedded in her right arm. Cheyenne S. identified "Demoe" and "Moo Moo" as being present during the shooting. Cheyenne S. said "Demoe" was the shooter. Moreover, Cheyenne S. told Officer Troglia the two suspects ran northbound between 707 and 709 Commercial Street. Officer Troglia observed footprints between 707 and709 Commercial Street going through the backyard to the alley directly behind 709 Commercial Street and then westbound behind 707 Commercial Street to the west side of the house. On the air conditioning unit behind 707 Commercial Street, Officer Troglia observed an imprint that appeared to be in the shape of a gun. Officer Troglia acknowledged the backyard of one of the residences had multiple tracks of...