People v. Grayer

2022 IL App (1st) 210808

203 N.E.3d 1019

461 Ill.Dec. 417

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

v.Santana GRAYER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-21-0808

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Filed July 20, 2022

Rehearing denied August 3, 2022

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, Daniel T. Mallon, and Christina Law Merriman, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Brian A. Levitsky, and Sharon Kim, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Santana Grayer was found guilty of attempted vehicular hijacking, then sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The evidence introduced at trial showed that defendant was the passenger in Lyft rideshare vehicle driven by the victim, Arnold Ong. Defendant was intoxicated and believed that Ong was driving in the wrong direction. From the back seat of the vehicle, defendant grabbed Ong's shirt sleeve and threatened to kill him. Ong parked the vehicle at a gas station, took the keys to the vehicle, and called police.

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in finding him guilty of attempted vehicular hijacking where the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he had the intent to commit vehicular hijacking or that his actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of that offense. Defendant maintains that his actions demonstrate that he was simply a highly intoxicated person who wanted to go home rather than represent a serious attempt to hijack Ong's vehicle. In the alternative, defendant contends that his sentence is excessive in light of the nonserious nature of the offense where no one was hurt and in light of the substantial mitigating evidence presented. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Trial Proceedings

¶ 5 At trial, Ong testified that, in September 2020, he was driving for Lyft when he received a pickup request from a Lyft account-holder named Phyllis. When he arrived at the designated location, he saw a large group of people. Ong spoke to Phyllis who told him that defendant would be the passenger for the requested ride. Ong could tell that defendant was intoxicated. Defendant got into the back seat of Ong's vehicle, and Ong started to drive toward the designated location. Several minutes into the drive, defendant told Ong that he was driving the wrong direction. Ong testified that he was following the GPS directions in the Lyft application. The destination for the ride was inputted when the ride was requested. Ong did not know who put the destination information into the Lyft application. Ong told defendant that he was going in the right direction because he was following the GPS in the Lyft application.

¶ 6 Defendant then became angry and told Ong that he wanted to drive the vehicle himself. Ong told defendant that he could not drive the vehicle. Defendant asked to drive the car himself "multiple times" in a loud voice. Defendant then "got mad," grabbed Ong's shirt at his right shoulder, and threatened to kill him. While grabbing Ong's shoulder with his left hand, defendant reached his right hand toward his waist. Ong thought defendant was trying to "grab something" from his waist. Ong believed defendant was attempting to get a "deadly weapon" from his waistband, such as a knife or a gun. Defendant repeatedly told Ong that he was going to kill him while holding onto his shirt sleeve.

¶ 7 Ong testified that he was scared and realized his "life was at stake." Ong drove the vehicle to a gas station. Ong got out of the vehicle and took his car keys and his cellphone with him. Defendant also got out of the vehicle and started "chasing" Ong around the vehicle. Ong acknowledged that defendant was moving slowly while following him around the vehicle, but Ong testified that he believed defendant could not run fast because he was intoxicated. Ong did not lock his vehicle after he got out because his keyless entry remote was not working. Ong testified that he could have used his keys to lock the vehicle, but he was in a hurry and did not have time to do so.

¶ 8 Ong was able to get away from defendant and went into the convenience store at the gas station. The people in the convenience store called the police for Ong. Ong did not tell the people in the convenience store that he believed defendant had a gun but did tell them that defendant threatened to kill him. While waiting for police, Ong wanted to check on his vehicle so he took a step outside of the convenience store to look at it. He saw defendant standing near the vehicle holding Ong's house keys, which Ong had left in the vehicle's cup holder. Defendant was waiving the keys toward Ong. Ong saw defendant get into the driver's seat of the vehicle with the house keys.

¶ 9 The State then submitted into evidence a surveillance video of the incident from the gas station's security system. The surveillance video shows Ong driving the vehicle into the gas station near a pump. Ong then exits the vehicle, and defendant exits too. Ong walks toward the front of the vehicle but turns around when defendant also begins walking toward the front of the vehicle. Ong briefly opens the front, driver's side door, but closes it as defendant approaches. Ong then starts walking around the back of the vehicle while defendant follows. Ong then circles the vehicle again while defendant follows.

¶ 10 When defendant reaches the front driver's side, he opens the door and looks at Ong over the top of the vehicle. Defendant remains standing near the open door while Ong goes inside the convenience store. After Ong enters the store, defendant walks around the vehicle and leans against the rear passenger side door. Ong later comes out of the convenience store and stands near the entrance next to two men, one of whom is speaking on a phone. Ong and the two men then go back inside the convenience store when defendant approaches them.

¶ 11 Another segment of the video shows defendant standing near the open, front driver's side door holding Ong's house keys. Defendant is shaking the keys toward the convenience store.

¶ 12 Defendant then gets inside the vehicle with Ong's house keys in his hand. Defendant can be seen reaching toward the ignition of the vehicle with the keys in his hand and making a turning motion as though attempting to start the vehicle. Defendant repeats this motion several times. Defendant then reclines the driver's seat and lies back until police arrive and force him to exit the vehicle.

¶ 13 The police arrived on the scene and took defendant into custody. Ong did not tell the responding officers that he believed defendant had a gun but did tell them that defendant threatened to kill him.

¶ 14 Sergeant Nicholas Cortesi testified that he responded to the call from the gas station. When he arrived, he saw defendant sitting in the driver's seat of Ong's vehicle. Sergeant Cortesi persuaded defendant to exit the vehicle and then placed him under arrest. Sergeant Cortesi testified that Ong did not tell him that he believed defendant had a gun. The parties stipulated that the footage from Sergeant Cortesi's body-worn camera would show that Ong did not make any statements to the officers that he thought defendant had a weapon on his waistband.

¶ 15 The State rested, and the court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Defense counsel indicated that defendant did not wish to testify. The court asked defendant if that was correct and defendant responded: "Yeah, I guess. I can't remember the case." Defendant subsequently rested without presenting any evidence.

¶ 16 Following closing argument, the court reviewed the evidence presented. The court noted that there was evidence of "some intoxication" but that the evidence showed that defendant was aware of his environment, knew different directions, and "knew to his way of thinking" that Ong was driving in the wrong direction. The court therefore found that defendant was "not intoxicated as a legal defense." The court found credible Ong's testimony that defendant grabbed Ong's shirt sleeve and that defendant reached toward his waistband with his other hand. The court observed that the surveillance video depicted a "slow motion" chase around the vehicle where defendant actually changed directions in his pursuit of Ong. The court found that the video also showed that once defendant sat in the driver's seat of the vehicle with Ong's house keys, he repeatedly made a motion toward "where the ignition would be as if to start the car." The court therefore found defendant guilty of attempted vehicular hijacking.

¶ 17 Following the court's ruling, defendant filed motions to set aside the finding of guilty and for a new trial, which the trial court denied after a hearing.

¶ 18 B. Postjudgment Motions

¶ 19 Defendant subsequently filed a pro se "motion for appointment of new counsel based upon ineffective assistance of trial counsel or in the alternative grant a new trial." In the motion, defendant alleged that he reviewed the arresting officer's body-worn camera recording with his attorney. Defendant contended that this recording contained "exculpatory or exonerating evidence." This evidence included Ong stating that defendant did not hit him and that Ong did not want to press criminal charges against defendant. Defendant alleged that the video showed the arresting officer coerce and intimidate Ong into pressing charges. Defendant alleged that defense counsel was aware of this evidence but failed to present it at trial.

¶ 20 Defendant also alleged misconduct by the State, contending that the State used perjured testimony and allowed Ong to present false testimony at trial. This contention also concerned statements from the arresting officer's body-worn camera recording, which defe...