People v. Landerman

2018 IL App (3d) 150684

127 N.E.3d 809

431 Ill.Dec. 276

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

v.Adam LANDERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-15-0684

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed December 3, 2018

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Yasemin Eken, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Dawn Duffy, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 Defendant, Adam Landerman, appeals his convictions for two counts of first degree murder and sentence of natural life imprisonment. Defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel raised a baseless defense that the inaudible nature of defendant's recorded statement rendered it insufficient to prove defendant's guilt. Defendant also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to redact irrelevant and prejudicial portions of defendant's statement that were improperly admitted as other-crimes evidence. Alternatively, defendant argues that the cumulative effect of counsel's errors requires reversal of his convictions.

¶ 2 Defendant also argues that the statute mandating that he receive a sentence of natural life imprisonment was unconstitutional as applied to him because the court was without discretion to impose a lesser sentence based on defendant's youth and potential for rehabilitation. Alternatively, defendant argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence. Defendant also argues that the court failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(a) (Oct. 1, 2001). We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant was charged with six counts of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) (West 2012) ). Three codefendants—Alisa Massaro, Bethany McKee, and Joshua Miner—were also charged with the offenses. The indictment alleged that defendant and the codefendants caused the death of two victims, Eric Glover and Terrance Rankins. The indictment set forth three different theories with regard to each victim: (1) defendant and the codefendants strangled the victims with the intent to do great bodily harm, (2) defendant and the codefendants strangled the victims knowing such an act created a strong probability of death, and (3) while committing a forcible felony—namely, a robbery—defendant and the codefendants strangled the victims thereby causing the victims' deaths.

¶ 5 The State filed a motion in limine to admit other-crimes evidence under Illinois Rule of Evidence 404(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). The motion alleged that the State sought to introduce evidence "of the activity after the murders, including the purchase and consumption of cocaine, the use of cannabis, attempts to get rid of the victim's vehicle, destroying the victims' cell phones, * * * and other evidence that supports the offenses of concealment of a homicidal death, robbery or abuse of a corpse." The State also sought to introduce "evidence that the defendant and Joshua Miner took marijuana and cash from the victims' pockets." The motion alleged these activities occurred "very close in time to the murders at issue."

¶ 6 At the hearing on the State's motion in limine , the State argued that the evidence of other crimes it sought to introduce was relevant because the other crimes were "so integral in the crime in this case." Defense counsel stated she had no argument against the admission of the other-crimes evidence, but objected "[f]or the record." The court granted the motion to admit other-crimes evidence. The court reasoned that the "forcible felony of robbery[,] the motivation behind what happen on that—the date of the offense[,] and what the parties did are certainly relevant."

¶ 7 The State also filed a motion to allow the jury to use a transcript to aid its review of defendant's videotaped police interview. The motion alleged that defendant's voice was low and could not always be heard clearly on the videotaped recording. The motion also alleged there was an audible humming that could be heard on the recording.

¶ 8 At the hearing on this motion, the State said defendant spoke very softly in the recording, but "[u]nder close listening, you can hear it." The State asserted that since the jurors would only have one chance to hear the recording, they might not hear every word spoken. The State argued the only way to guarantee that the jurors heard what was on the recording was for them to have a transcript. Defense counsel argued that the transcript should not be allowed because the case involved a video recording rather than a recording containing only audio, and the jurors might not watch the video if they were reading the transcripts. Defense counsel stated: "I think handing * * * the jury a transcript to follow, they are more likely to read the State's interpretation of what's said as opposed to what's actually said on the tape." Defense counsel also argued that the jury would not necessarily have only one chance to review the video recording because they could ask to view it again during deliberations. The court indicated it would take the motion under advisement and watch the video.

¶ 9 On the day the trial began, defense counsel stated that the court needed to address the matter of the transcript. Defense counsel said she and her co-counsel had reviewed the transcript, and the State made the corrections they requested. The court asked defense counsel whether the transcript was accurate, and defense counsel said yes. The court ruled that it would allow the State to present the transcript to the jury.

¶ 10 At trial, Detective Kevin Sepulveda testified that he and another detective interviewed defendant in connection with the instant case. The interview was recorded. Sepulveda reviewed a copy of the video-recorded interview and a transcript of the conversation. Sepulveda testified that everything he read in the transcript reflected what he heard in the recording. The prosecutor asked: "And do both the transcript and this DVD that you watched fairly and accurately portray the relevant portions of the interview as stipulated to by the parties in this case?" Sepulveda said yes.

¶ 11 The State moved to admit and publish the video recording of the interview and the transcript. Defense counsel objected, and the court admitted both. Before playing the video recording and distributing copies of the transcript to the jury, the court advised the jury that the videotape, rather than the transcript, was evidence. The court explained that the transcript was "the State's interpretation of what [was] said on the tape" and was provided "merely to assist you in listening to the tape." The court advised the jury: "[I]f your understanding of the tape diverges or is different from the transcript, your own interpretation of the tape is controlling."

¶ 12 The video recording was played for the jury. In the video, defendant spoke softly and was difficult to hear at times. Defendant stated that on the night of the incident, McKee picked him up to go drinking. They went over to Massaro's house. Massaro and her boyfriend, Miner, were at the house. McKee, Massaro, Miner, and defendant planned to ask Rankins to come over and to rob him when he arrived.¹ McKee said Rankins always carried a lot of cash and marijuana. Defendant agreed to the plan because everyone else agreed, and he did not have a way to return home. An officer asked defendant how they planned to rob Rankins. Defendant replied: "Beat his a** and if things went south, that's where I come in and then grab his money, grab the bud and tell him to get the f*** out pretty much." Defendant said Miner would be the one to beat Rankins, and defendant would just be there "for support" unless Miner needed assistance.

¶ 13 McKee called Rankins and asked him to come to Massaro's house. Rankins came over with his cousin, Glover. Rankins and Glover brought a bottle of liquor. Defendant, Miner, Massaro, and McKee were not expecting Glover to accompany Rankins. When Glover arrived, the plan changed. Miner asked defendant if he could "take" one of the men, and defendant said he could. They decided to wait until they had finished the bottle of liquor before they robbed Rankins and Glover, so they would catch Rankins and Glover off guard. They planned to ask to buy some drugs from Rankins and Glover and give them $20. When Rankins and Glover took out their cash, Miner and defendant would grab it and tell Rankins and Glover to leave.

¶ 14 Defendant told Miner he did not want any part of it, but he would help Miner if he heard a scuffle or "if s*** goes on." Defendant did not know if anything would actually happen, but he planned to help Miner "if anyone started boxing" because he had known Miner longer than Rankins and Glover. Defendant had known Miner for four days and had only known Rankins for two days. Defendant did not know Glover.

¶ 15 After Rankins and Glover arrived, everyone drank, smoked, and played video games. After approximately two hours, Miner exited the kitchen and accused Rankins of raping Massaro. Miner grabbed Rankins, put him in a chokehold, dragged him into the kitchen, and began fighting with him. Glover and defendant were sitting on the couch playing video games. Glover walked over to where Miner and Rankins were fighting and tried to help Rankins. Defendant pulled Glover back and told him to let Miner and Rankins "do their thing." Glover said, "No, that's my family." Glover again tried to help Rankins, and defendant put him in a chokehold. Glover struggled and tried to headbutt defendant. Defendant tensed up and locked his legs around Glover. Glover became unconscious after approximately 60 to 90 seconds. Once defendant saw Glover was unconscious, he released him. Defendant could feel that Glover was still...