People v. Marcum

240 N.E.3d 507

2024 IL 128687

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Clayton T. MARCUM, Appellant.

(Docket No. 128687)

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed March 21, 2024.

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Fourth District; heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford County, the Hon. Matthew J. Fitton, Judge, presiding.

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Catherine K. Hart, Deputy Defender, and Edward J. Wittrig, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the

State Appellate Defender, of Springfield, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Katherine M. Doersch and Gopi Kashyap, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 Defendant, Clayton T. Marcum, was convicted in the circuit court of Ford County of two counts of aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a) (West 2018)). Defendant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of seven years on each count. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a speedy trial had been violated, he did not knowingly waive his right to counsel, the State failed to prove him guilty of aggravated domestic battery, and the circuit court violated his right to remain silent when it ordered him to participate in the preparation of his presentence investigation report. 2022 IL App (4th) 200656-U, 2022 WL 2079100.

¶ 2 The appellate court agreed that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant guilty of aggravated domestic battery. The appellate court therefore reduced defendant’s convictions to Class 3 aggravated batteries and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The appellate court rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. In this court, defendant appeals only his speedy trial and waiver of counsel claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On September 1, 2019, police officer Brandon Ryan of the Paxton Police Department received a report of a naked man outside some apartments. When Officer Ryan arrived on the scene, he observed a man, later identified as Greg Rudin, lying in an alley outside the apartments with various injuries. Rudin was taken to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage and broken ribs.

¶ 5 Bystanders told Officer Ryan that they had seen Rudin with defendant. Officer Ryan then spoke with defendant. Defendant said that he and Rudin drank together at defendant’s apartment until Rudin left at 10 p.m. Officer Ryan noted that defendant had dried blood on his clothing. Defendant then clarified that he and Rudin had wrestled and that he assisted Rudin down the stairs. Defendant eventually stated that Rudin fell down the stairs.

¶ 6 Officer Ryan returned to defendant’s apartment with a search warrant. Officers found blood on a mattress in the apartment and in a stairwell outside the apartment. Defendant stated that Rudin was bleeding prior to leaving the apartment. The officers arrested defendant on charges of aggravated battery and obstruction of justice.

¶ 7 Five days after defendant’s arrest, investigating officers met with defendant at the county jail, where he made a videotaped confession. Defendant told the officers that he met Rudin several days prior to September 1, 2019, and had a sexual encounter with Rudin. On September 1, defendant and Rudin were drinking and began to wrestle and engage in consensual horseplay. Defendant admitted that he struck Rudin while they were wrestling. The wrestling stopped when Rudin began bleeding. Defendant and Rudin then left defendant’s apartment to walk to a bar. While on their way to the bar, Rudin fell down the stairs. Defendant tried to help Rudin walk outside, but Rudin kept falling. When Rudin fell the last time, defendant stomped on Rudin. Defendant told Rudin to stay there, to sleep it off, and to take himself home in the morning.

¶ 8 On September 27, 2019, the State charged defendant with one count of aggravated battery, a Class 3 felony, for striking Rudin on the head and body and knowingly causing Rudin great bodily harm. The information stated that, if defendant was convicted of the charged offense, he could be sentenced to an extended term of 5 to 10 years in prison based upon a prior residential burglary conviction in Iroquois County. The public defender’s office was appointed to represent defendant.

¶ 9 At the preliminary hearing on September 30, 2019, Officer Ryan testified that, when he spoke to defendant at the scene, defendant had dried blood on his shirt and jeans. Officer Ryan also testified that, in defendant’s videotaped statement following his arrest, defendant admitted that he struck Rudin’s head and saw blood coming out of his mouth. Defendant also demonstrated how he stomped on Rudin after he fell. Rudin suffered broken ribs, a punctured lung, and three brain hematomas. Officer Ryan said that Rudin had recently awakened from a coma and was unable to speak. Officer Ryan also testified that he learned during his investigation that defendant and Rudin were in a dating relationship. The trial court found probable cause to support the aggravated battery charge and suggested an October 2019 trial date. Defense counsel objected and, after consulting with defendant, proposed a January 2020 trial date. The trial court granted defendant’s request.

¶ 10 Defendant’s trial was set for January 6, 2020, but on that date, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to extend the speedy trial term by no more than 20 days in order to complete DNA testing, over defendant’s objection. The trial court set the trial for April 2020.

¶ 11 At a hearing on March 19, 2020, the State indicated that it had received and provided defense counsel with the DNA test results and that the State was ready for trial. In March 2020, the State also made an offer of an eight-year sentencing cap in exchange for a guilty plea from defendant. After consulting with his attorney, defendant rejected the State’s offer. Defendant also stated that he wanted his attorney removed from the case.

¶ 12 On April 13, 2020, the case was continued to July 2020 due to this court’s COVID-19 administrative orders. At a May 15, 2020, hearing, defendant again informed the court that he wanted his attorney removed. The trial court continued the case for a hearing on defendant’s request. On May 22, 2020, the trial court told defendant the nature of the charge, admonished defendant of his rights under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401 (eff. July 1, 1984), and discussed with defendant his right to counsel and the consequences of proceeding pro se. Defendant affirmed that he wished to proceed pro se.

¶ 13 On July 6, 2020, the State dismissed the aggravated battery count and filed a two-count information charging defendant with two counts of aggravated domestic battery, a Class 2 felony. Count I alleged that defendant struck Rudin with his fist, causing a subarachnoid hemorrhage, that defendant caused great bodily harm to Rudin, and that Rudin was defendant’s family or household member. Count II alleged that defendant stomped on Rudin with his foot, causing rib fractures, that defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm to Rudin, and that Rudin was defendant’s family or household member. Both counts averred that defendant was eligible for extended-term sentencing due to defendant’s prior residential burglary conviction.

¶ 14 The new counts proceeded to arraignment. At the arraignment, the trial court read the new information to defendant. The trial court admonished defendant that he was facing a sentence of 7 to 14 years on each charge, rather than the usual sentence of 3 to 7 years, due to his prior residential burglary conviction. The trial court also informed defendant that a mandatory supervised release (MSR) term would be added to any prison sentence and that probation and conditional discharge were available sentences. Defendant sought clarification of the charges. The trial court repeated the charges and the possible penalties and also told defendant that he would need to serve 85% of any prison sentence and would be ineligible for day-for-day credit. Defendant responded that he understood.

¶ 15 The trial court then confirmed that defendant still wished to represent himself. The trial court asked defendant if he understood the charges; defendant responded, "Yeah." The trial court then asked defendant if he understood the minimum and maximum penalties, including extended-term eligibility, the MSR range, and the applicable financial obligations. Defendant responded, "Uh-huh." The trial court next told defendant that he had the right to represent himself but that counsel could be appointed for him if he was indigent. When asked if he understood that, defendant said "Yeah." The trial court asked defendant if he wished to waive his right to counsel, and the defendant said he did.

¶ 16 Defendant then asked the court about spending 120 days in custody and whether the speedy trial limitation was "completely out the window." The trial court stated that the speedy trial limitation was tolled by this court’s COVID-19 order. Defendant responded, "So I have to start all over again? Like be here, like be here over a year ago or three more months or four more months?" The trial court answered that defendant’s case was continued by agreement and due to COVID-19. Defendant replied, "[y]ou can see I been here for about a year, and this ain’t a murder charge. I been here for about a year." The trial court again responded that the case was continued by agreement and that the speedy trial period starts over every time the case is continued by agreement. Defendant asked the court if there were "anymore curve balls I need to be aware of?" The trial court denied there was a curve ball and informed defendant that the State simply "elected to file a different charge."

¶ 17 A preliminary...