People v. Kendrick

228 N.E.3d 917

2023 IL App (3d) 200127

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

v.Dannie L. KENDRICK Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-20-0127

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Filed April 26, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 21st Judicial Circuit, Kankakee County, Illinois. Circuit No. 11-CF-642, The Honorable Kathy S. Bradshaw Elliott, Judge, Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Dimitri Golfis, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Jim Rowe, State’s Attorney, of Kankakee (Patrick Delfino, Thomas D. Arado, and Korin I. Navarro, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 At the age of 19, defendant Dannie L. Kendrick Jr. was charged with murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2), (3) (West 2010)) and armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)(2)). Prior to trial, defendant sought to exclude evidence of certain statements he made to police. The trial court partially denied the motion, allowing the jury to hear statements defendant made about his prior criminal activity and parole status. The jury found defendant guilty. At defendant’s sentencing hearing, an expert in developmental psychology testified that defendant was capable of rehabilitation primarily due to his age at the time of his offenses. After concluding that defendant lacked rehabilitative potential, the trial court sentenced defendant to 60 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in admitting other-crimes evidence, (2) his sentence is unconstitutional, and (3) the trial court erred in finding he lacked rehabilitative potential.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On November 30, 2011, the State charged defendant, a 19-year-old, with first degree murder (id. § 94(a)(2), (3)), armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)(2)), and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id § 24-1.1(a)). The indictment alleged that defendant shot and killed Joseph Buckner while robbing him.

¶ 4 Between 2013 and 2018, defendant filed five motions to quash his arrest and/or suppress statements he made to police. Following hearings on each motion, the trial court denied them. In May 2019, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to have various statements redacted from his interviews with police. The trial court partially granted and partially denied the motion, ordering some statements redacted but allowing statements defendant made about breaking into people’s homes and being on parole to be admitted into evidence and heard by the jury. Defendant filed a motion to sever the unlawful possession of a weapon charge from the other charges against him. The trial court granted that motion, and the case proceeded to a jury trial on the murder and armed robbery charges.

¶ 5 Defendant’s trial took place over six days. The evidence at trial established that the victim, Joseph Buckner, lived on the 600 block of South Lincoln Avenue in Kankakee. On November 25, 2011, Buckner was shot several times in front of his house between 7:50 p.m. and 7:52 p.m. Police found Buckner lying face down on the sidewalk about two blocks from his home with gunshot wounds to his chest, thigh, and thumb. Buckner died as a result of those gunshot wounds. The police found five .380-caliber shell casings in front of Buckner’s house.

¶ 6 Four days after Buckner’s murder, three officers from the Kankakee Police Department interviewed defendant. Sergeant Steven Hunter interviewed defendant first. During that interview, defendant denied any involvement in Buckner’s murder. Next, Detective Avery Ivey interviewed defendant, and defendant continued to deny killing Buckner. During that interview, defendant made the following statement:

"I break into people’s houses, I ain’t going to lie. I break into somebody’s house. I won’t shoot nobody. I won’t kill nobody. You know what I’m saying. That ain’t what I do. You know what I’m saying. I would rather catch you gone and I can get away from it and I’m gone. You know what I’m saying."

Later, Detective Randy Hartman interviewed defendant. Defendant initially denied his involvement in Buckner’s murder but eventually admitted that he shot Buckner.

¶ 7 Defendant told Hartman his cousin, Ricky Kendrick (Ricky), came up with the idea to rob Buckner because Ricky knew Buckner had money. Ricky waited across the street while defendant committed the robbery. Defendant approached Buckner’s car and told Buckner to get out of the vehicle and give him money. Buckner gave defendant $250 and then grabbed defendant’s gun. Defendant shot Buckner in the leg, and Buckner grabbed the gun again, so defendant shot him several more times, hitting him in the abdomen. Defendant ran toward his uncle’s house, and Buckner ran in the opposite direction. Defendant said the gun he used was a .380-caliber that belonged to his cousin David Kendrick (David). Defendant told Hartman he did not intend to kill Buckner and only used the gun as a "scare tactic."

¶ 8 Defendant told Hartman that he and Ricky had broken into houses on "random streets" in the past but this was his first time "ever shooting a person ever killing a person." Defendant also mentioned to Hartman that he has a parole officer. The video recordings of Ivey’s and Hartman’s interviews with defendant were admitted into evidence and played for the jury.

¶ 9 Ricky Kendrick testified that the State initially charged him with Buckner’s murder, but he pled guilty to armed robbery, and the State dismissed the murder charge against him. Ricky testified that on the night of November 25, 2011, he was with defendant. He had a .45-caliber pistol, and defendant had a .380-caliber pistol. He and defendant planned to burglarize a specific house that night but then decided not to. As they were walking, Ricky saw Buckner exiting his vehicle. Defendant told Ricky he wanted to rob Buckner. Ricky told defendant not to because Ricky knew and "loved" Buckner. Ricky walked across the street while defendant walked toward Buckner’s car. Ricky heard defendant tell Buckner to "get the f*** out the car." Ricky then heard approximately five gunshots and ran toward his mother’s house. Defendant caught up to Ricky and told him he shot Buckner because he reached for his gun.

¶ 10 Issaclerome Watson testified he has been a barber in Kankakee for many years and has cut defendant’s hair several times. On November 25, 2011, Watson received a phone call from David at 8:04 pm asking him to cut defendant’s hair. Watson agreed, and defendant arrived at his barber shop around 8:20 pm.

¶ 11 Dr. Melissa Russano, an expert in social cognitive psychology and investigative interviewing, interrogations, and confessions, testified that false confessions are not uncommon and that individuals under 21 years of age account for 49% of false confessions. She reviewed defendant’s confession and saw significant known risk factors that increased the likelihood of a false confession, including the defendant’s age, investigator tunnel vision, investigators lying or bluffing about evidence, investigators implying leniency or harsher punishment, and isolation.

¶ 12 Defendant’s uncle, Andre Beals, testified that defendant was at his house the evening of November 25, 2011, until about 6 p.m. or 7 pm, when he left with Megail Waters. Ricky and David left an hour or two after defendant.

¶ 13 The jury found defendant guilty of murder and armed robbery. Defendant’s presentence investigation report revealed that as a juvenile defendant was adjudicated delinquent for resisting a peace officer and criminal trespass to a residence. As an adult, defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and resisting a peace officer. Defendant did not have a consistent and stable home as a child, living at various times with his mother, father, aunt, and grandmother. He also lived at a shelter, a foster home, and detention centers. His mother straggled with alcoholism, housing issues, and schizophrenia. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Service (DCFS) was involved in defendant’s life at the age of three for abuse and neglect. His father was frequently incarcerated. Both his father and aunt were abusive to defendant. Defendant began selling crack and using marijuana at age 13. Defendant had a history of leaving substance-abuse facilities before completing treatment.

¶ 14 On February 21, 2020, the court held a sentencing hearing. Dr. James Garbarino, an expert in developmental psychology, testified that he interviewed defendant once for approximately two hours. Based on that interview, Garbarino determined that throughout his childhood and until the time of his crime, defendant "was dealing with major issues of adversity which are known to undermine positive development and increase the likelihood of a variety of problems, including violent behavior." According to Garbarino, research shows that "adversity slows down the development of [the] brain." In addition, defendant experienced significant "psychological maltreatment which creates emotional issues and behavioral issues that can disrupt normal adolescent development." Garbarino believed defendant’s adversity and psychological maltreatment undermined his ability to think clearly and clouded his ability to have positive social interactions with others.

¶ 15 In Garbarino’s experience, almost all youthful offenders are capable of rehabilitation because the brain is not fully developed until age 25. Garbarino determined defendant’s likelihood of rehabilitation was "very, very encouraging" based on his actions while in jail, including becoming an avid reader and committing to meditation. According to Garbarino, those actions show defendant is engaging in positive behavior, "rather than just sitting around, or getting in trouble, or self-defeating behavior." Garbarino opined that if given additional resources, which are available in prison, defendant "will continue...