People v. Dawson

2020 IL App (4th) 180609-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-18-0609

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

November 25, 2020

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. 17CF247

Honorable Nancy S. Fahey, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court vacated defendant's conviction for aggravated domestic battery pursuant to the one-act, one-crime doctrine and affirmed defendant's remaining convictions and sentence.

¶ 2 In July 2017, the State charged defendant, Christopher Dawson, with one count each of aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2016)), aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(1)), aggravated domestic battery (id. § 12-3.3(a)), and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)). The charges alleged generally that on April 5, 2017, defendant, a felon, knowingly discharged a firearm in the direction of Antoinette Tidwell, his on-and-off girlfriend, causing her injury.

¶ 3 Defendant retained private counsel, but in December 2017, defendant fired his counsel and elected to proceed pro se.

¶ 4 Later in December 2017, the trial court conducted defendant's bench trial at which the court found defendant guilty of all counts. In March 2018, the court sentenced defendant to 30 years in prison for aggravated battery with a firearm, 14 years in prison for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and 12 years in prison for aggravated domestic battery, all to run concurrently.

¶ 5 Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) his battery convictions should be vacated because the State failed to prove defendant had the requisite mental state to sustain those charges, (2) the trial court erred when it failed to allow defendant a continuance to review the videotape evidence before completing the trial, and (3) defendant's aggravated domestic battery conviction should be vacated under the one-act, one-crime doctrine. We agree only with defendant's last argument and order his conviction for aggravated domestic battery vacated. We disagree with his other arguments and otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

¶ 6 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 In July 2017, the State charged defendant by amended information (amending charges originally filed in April 2017) with one count each of aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)), aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(1)), aggravated domestic battery (id. § 12-3.3(a)), and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)). The charges alleged generally that on April 5, 2017, defendant, a felon, knowingly discharged a firearm in the direction of Antoinette Tidwell, his off-and-on girlfriend, causing her injury. (We note that the State dismissed two other counts prior to trial.)

¶ 8 A. Pretrial Proceedings and Waiver of Counsel

¶ 9 In April 2017, defendant appeared in court with private counsel, and the trial court conducted defendant's preliminary hearing. Private counsel represented defendant over the course of the next several months at multiple hearings.

¶ 10 At a pretrial hearing on December 11, 2017, before the parties could state theirappearances, defendant interjected, "I would like to object to any continuance." Shortly thereafter, defendant said, "Also, I would like to go pro[ ]se. My lawyer is fired." Defense counsel said, "Your Honor, I am going to be moving to continue this one week, with the agreement of [the State]." Defendant interjected, "I object to any continuance, and I would like to go pro[ ]se." The trial court told defendant that his position would be noted in the record. Defendant replied, "My lawyer is fired, for the record."

¶ 11 Defendant filed two letters, file-stamped December 12 and 13, 2017, in which he said (1) he objected to any continuance, (2) his private counsel was fired, and (3) he wanted to proceed pro se. Defendant also explained that he wanted "to go to trial ASAP" and that he was "ready for tr[ia]l."

¶ 12 On December 18, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing at which it inquired about defendant's desire to proceed pro se. Defendant explained that he wanted to proceed pro se because he had a disagreement with his counsel regarding strategy. The trial court admonished defendant pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) (eff. July 1, 1984). In particular, the court said, "You're not going to receive any extra time for preparation or greater library time. Do you understand that?" Defendant replied, "Yes, ma'am." The court also said, "And in the event that I accept your decision to represent yourself, you will not be given an opportunity to change your mind during trial, and the trial is going to start tomorrow morning at 9:00. Do you understand that?" Defendant replied, "Yes, ma'am."

¶ 13 The trial court found that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court asked whether defendant wanted a bench or jury trial. Defendant said he would like a bench trial. The following exchange then occurred:

"THE COURT: And you're ready to proceed tomorrow? You havewitnesses lined up?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. All I ask, can I be able to go over a full review of my discovery?

THE COURT: Well, that will be turned over to you, and you'll have tonight to do that.

THE DEFENDANT: Will I be able to look over the films? Because I haven't seen nothing.

THE COURT: Well, that's because you've just decided at the last minute to go pro[ ]se.

THE DEFENDANT: Technically, we supposed to—we was scheduled to go to trial on the 4th, and I [sic] been having inconsistencies with my lawyer on—

* * *

THE COURT: Be that as it may, sir, the discovery will be turned over to you today, and you'll have tonight to look at it. If you don't think that's sufficient time, you can move to continue, but I've already granted your motion to go pro[ ]se, which is what you said you wanted to do.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay, ma'am. That's—that's all right.

THE COURT: You're ready to proceed for tomorrow?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am."

¶ 14 Defendant then asked a question regarding issuing a subpoena for phone records, to which the trial court responded, "You're your own counsel. I can't give you legal advice. You would have to prepare your own subpoena." The court then asked defendant again, "Do you still wish to proceed tomorrow?" Defendant replied, "Yes." The court then noted that the State'smotions in limine were pending and told the parties that those would be addressed prior to trial the following day.

¶ 15 The following day, prior to the start of trial, the State informed the trial court that it was unsure whether defendant had been admonished, pursuant to Rule 401(a)(3), as to his right to a public defender if he is indigent. The court asked defendant if he was at all interested in having a public defender appointed to him, and defendant responded, "No. I want to still remain pro[ ]se."

¶ 16 B. Defendant's Bench Trial

¶ 17 1. The State's Case

¶ 18 In December 2017, the trial court conducted defendant's bench trial. Antoinette Tidwell testified that defendant was her boyfriend "[o]n and off for the last 15 years." Tidwell initially refused to testify until the trial court ordered her to answer the State's questions.

¶ 19 Tidwell testified that on April 5, 2017, she returned home after working earlier in the evening. When she got home, her son and defendant were there. Tidwell said that when she got home, things were "[p]erfect" between her and defendant but then things changed. Tidwell denied they had any argument or disagreement. The State asked her how she ended up getting shot in the face, and she did not know how she ended up getting shot in the face.

¶ 20 Tidwell did acknowledge that earlier on April 5, 2017, defendant came to her workplace, Buffalo Wild Wings, asked for food, and complained that Tidwell had an attitude. She also acknowledged that she stood "up in his face" and said, "Why I got attitude?" Tidwell stated that defendant complained that she did not check on him or give him attention and that at one point he "followed [her] through the restaurant and asked [her] for change."

¶ 21 Tidwell said that she and defendant were discussing this incident at her home later that night and acknowledged that the discussion turned into a "disagreement." Tidwell said that atone point defendant pulled out a gun. They were "wrestling" and she felt defendant touch the gun to her face on her cheek two times. Defendant "was crying, talking to [Tidwell] saying he was tired of [her] and [her] bullshit." The State asked, "Did he threaten to use the gun in any way?" Tidwell responded, "Yeah. He had it on—he had it, like, on my face, saying that—that he was tired of me and this and that." Tidwell said, "He shot it. He shot it in the wall and it hit me." She elaborated that he shot the gun "[o]ne time" and the shot hit her "[i]n [her] face."

¶ 22 Tidwell testified that defendant owned a red Ford Explorer truck and a gray Cadillac. Tidwell said that defendant tried to take her to the hospital in his Explorer but she did not go with him. She went to her own car and went to defendant's house. While driving there, she called the police. When she arrived, defendant was not there. Tidwell testified that an ambulance arrived and took her to the hospital where she received medical treatment. She said they cleaned the wound, used "stitches, [and] staple[d] it together."

¶ 23 On cross-examination, Tidwell testified that she smoked cannabis after she left work and that it was possible that smoking cannabis could have impaired her memory of what happened. Tidwell said that it was "definitely possible" that the firearm went...