People v. Davis

226 N.E.3d 177

2023 IL App (1st) 220231

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

v.Isreael DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-22-0231

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District,

SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed June 2, 2023

Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing July 28, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 20 CR 02786, The Honorable Adrienne Davis, Judge, Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Elizabeth A. Botti, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Noah Montague, and Taylor Dall, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Isreael Davis was convicted of aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle (aggravated PSMV) (625 ILCS 5/4-103.2(a)(7)(A) (West 2018)), simple possession of a stolen motor vehicle (PSMV) (id. § 4403(a)(1)), and two counts of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer (id. § ll-204.1(a)(1), (4)). He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of four years for aggravated PSMV, three years for PSMV, three years for aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, and two years for fleeing and eluding. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a police officer’s identification testimony and failing to move for discovery sanctions or seek a continuance to rebut the testimony, (2) he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt where his conviction rested solely on that officer’s identification, (3) the State never established that the officer pursuing defendant was in a police uniform, and (4) his PSMV conviction is a lesser included offense of aggravated PSMV and that both the aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and fleeing and eluding were based on the same act of fleeing that officer. For the reasons that follow, we affirm and remand for correction of the mittimus.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant’s arrest and subsequent trial stem from events that occurred on November 10, 2019, when he was arrested and charged with aggravated PSMV, simple PSMV, and two counts of aggravated attempting to flee or elude a peace officer.

¶ 4 A. Trial

¶ 5 Terry Hobson testified for the State that on November 7, 2019, he owned a gray 2007 Ford Edge. On that day, he was at a gas station in Riverdale. He left the car running while he went inside to pay for the gas, and while returning to his car, he saw two black males in his vehicle driving away. Hobson was unable to see the faces of the men that took his car. He called the police and reported the car stolen. On cross-examination, Hobson stated that defendant was one of the men in his car that night, but he admitted that he did not give any identifying information or description to the Riverdale police. Hobson next saw his car on November 10, 2019, at the South Holland car pound. The car was very damaged, the airbags were deployed, and all of his personal property was missing from the car. Hobson identified defendant in court as someone he recognized from around the neighborhood. Hobson stated that defendant did not have permission to be in possession of his 2007 Ford Edge on November 10, 2019.

¶ 6 Chicago police officer Matthew Parisi testified that during the evening of November 9 and early morning hours of November 10, 2019, he was assigned to the Chicago Police Department, Fifth District,¹ and was on duty as a tactical unit officer. He was working with his partner, Officer Steven Kotrba, and their duties included responding to shootings and gang activity in the area. Both he and his partner were dressed in plain clothes but were wearing badges and bulletproof vests with designators indicating that they were Chicago police. Officer Parisi stated that they were in an unmarked police vehicle that was equipped with lights and sirens, and he rode in the front passenger seat.

¶ 7 Officer Parisi testified that he and his partner were responding to a Shot-Spotter alert in the area of 116th Street and Prairie Avenue. They proceeded to the area heading north from 119th Street. They arrived at the intersection of 116th Street and Michigan Avenue at approximately 12:03 a.m., and Officer Parisi saw a dark-colored Ford Edge stopped at the intersection. The police vehicle was on Michigan Avenue facing north, and the Ford Edge was on 116th Street, facing west. Office Parisi testified that he had an unobstructed view of the driver of the Ford Edge, and the area was illuminated by numerous streetlights. Officer Parisi identified defendant in court as the person he saw in the driver’s seat of the Ford Edge.

¶ 8 Officer Parisi testified that defendant looked in his direction, then moved his body consistent with placing something under the driver’s seat. Defendant then accelerated and turned in front of the police vehicle and continued south on Michigan Avenue at a high rate of speed. Officer Parisi turned and recorded the license plate of the Ford Edge, while Officer Kotrba made a U-turn, activated the lights and sirens, and pursued the Ford Edge. Officer Parisi ran the license plates of the Ford Edge and learned that it was stolen. He testified that the police vehicle was traveling approximately 60 miles per hour (mph) to catch defendant and that the speed limit in the area was 35 mph. During the chase, Officer Parisi saw defendant disregard a stop sign at 117th Street and Michigan Avenue, as well as a solid red light at 119th Street and Michigan Avenue. The officers continued pursuing the Ford Edge until they received an order to terminate the chase due to it becoming a threat to the public. Officer Kotrba stopped the police vehicle, and Officer Parisi saw defendant continue to flee and enter the Bishop Ford Expressway. Officer Parisi further testified that, later that morning, he and Officer Kotrba went to South Holland, Illinois, where they saw the dark colored Ford Edge had crashed in a strip mall. He also saw defendant in the back of an Illinois State Police squad car and identified him on the scene as the driver of the Ford Edge.

¶ 9 On cross-examination, Officer Parisi testified that he looked at defendant for three to four seconds, that defendant looked directly at the police vehicle, and that he recognized defendant from a prior arrest in 2018 that defendant had in the same district. Officer Parisi acknowledged that the Ford Edge was never fingerprinted and that there may have been other individuals in the Ford Edge.

¶ 10 South Holland police officer Robert Flores testified that he was on duty in the early morning hours of November 10, 2019, and received a dispatch regarding a vehicle chase coming through his area. He was on patrol and was in full police uniform. Officer Flores testified that he observed the Ford Edge traveling at a high rate of speed southbound on State Street and he pursued the vehicle at approximately 1:15 a.m. Officer Flores lost sight of the vehicle shortly thereafter and terminated his pursuit. However, he saw the vehicle again a short time later after it crashed into another vehicle near a strip mall at 162nd Street and South Park Avenue in South Holland. The gray Ford Edge was subsequently towed to the South Holland impound lot. Officer Flores did not make any arrests that night, but he saw defendant in custody following the crash. On cross-examination, Officer Flores admitted that he did not see the accident or who was driving the Ford Edge.

¶ 11 The State requested a continuance to bring in the Illinois State Police officers as witnesses, but they did not appear at the next court date, and the trial court denied the State’s motion for a second continuance. The State admitted its exhibits into evidence and rested. Defendant moved for a directed finding, which was denied. Defendant then rested without presenting any evidence after being admonished of his right to testify.

¶ 12 The trial court found defendant guilty on all counts, finding that the police officers testified credibly. The court noted that Officer Parisi saw defendant, recognized him, and identified him in court as the driver of the Ford Edge. The court also noted that Officer Parisi testified that he was wearing designators indicating that he was a police officer on the night of the pursuit and further that defendant was detained in custody in the area of the Ford Edge following the crash.

¶ 13 B. Posttrial Proceedings

¶ 14 Following trial, on December 16, 2020, defendant indicated to the trial court that he wished to file a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against his trial counsel. Defendant also stated that he wished to proceed pro se and that he had other motions for a new trial, which he later filed. In his various motions, defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) insufficiently communicating with defendant while he was in custody pending trial, (2) coercing defendant not to testify at trial, (3) inadequately investigating and preparing for trial, (4) not objecting to Officer Parisi’s testimony about defendant’s 2018 arrest, and (5) not impeaching Officer Parisi with defendant’s 2018 arrest report and complaints filed against Officer Parisi. The trial court continued the matter for a Krankel hearing. See People ν. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984).

¶ 15 On February 10, 2021, defendant’s trial counsel moved to withdraw because defendant filed a complaint against him with the Attorney Registration and Disci- plinary Commission, which the trial court granted. The case was continued for defendant to obtain new counsel, but the public defender was subsequently appointed to represent defendant for posttrial motions and sentencing at defendant’s request. Posttrial counsel filed an amended motion for a new trial in August 2021, alleging that the State failed to prove d...