People v. Marcum

1

2022 IL App (4th) 200656-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLAYTON T. MARCUM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-20-0656

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

June 9, 2022

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford County No. 20CF53 Honorable Matthew John Fitton, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

TURNER, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant was in a dating relationship with the victim, warranting a reduction of defendant's aggravated domestic battery convictions to aggravated battery. Defendant failed to establish plain error as to his other claims.

¶ 2 In July 2020, the State charged defendant, Clayton T Marcum, by information with two counts of aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a) (West 2018)) for a September 1 2019, attack on Greg Rudin. The State had previously charged defendant with aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1) (West 2018)) for the attack on Greg in Ford County case No. 19-CF-72 (case 72). After an October 2020 jury trial, the jury found defendant guilty of both aggravated domestic battery charges in this case. At the December 2020 sentencing hearing, the Ford County circuit court sentenced defendant to consecutive prison terms of seven years on each count.

¶ 3 Defendant appeals, contending (1) his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated, (2) his right to counsel was violated due to incomplete admonishments under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401 (eff. July 1, 1984), (3) the State's evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated domestic battery, and (4) his right to remain silent was violated. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the cause to the circuit court for a new sentencing hearing.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 At around 7:30 a.m. on September 1, 2019, Paxton police officer Brandon Ryan received a dispatch to Schoolhouse Apartments based on a report of a naked male lying behind the apartments. When Officer Ryan arrived, he observed a half-naked male, who was later identified as Greg Rudin. Greg appeared to have been lying outside on his back for a while and was not wearing pants and underwear. According to Officer Ryan, Greg looked to have been in a fight because he had swollen ears, dried blood on him, a dislocated jaw, and black eyes. An ambulance arrived and took Greg to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage and broken ribs. Two people at the scene told Officer Ryan they thought Greg had been upstairs with defendant. Officer Ryan located defendant and spoke with him. Defendant admitted he and Greg were friends and Greg had been in his apartment the previous evening. They had been drinking and wrestling. Defendant stated Greg left at 10 p.m. and went home. Later in the day, Officer Ryan obtained a search warrant for defendant's apartment. During the search, blood was found on a mattress in the apartment and in the stairwell outside defendant's apartment.

¶ 6 A. Case 72

¶ 7 On September 1, 2019, defendant was arrested for both aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1) (West 2018)) and obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a) (West 2018)). On September 3, 2019, the trial court set defendant's bond, but defendant did not post bond. On September 27, 2019, the State charged defendant by information with one count of aggravated battery, which asserted that, in committing a battery, defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm to Greg, in that he struck Greg about the head and body. The charge also noted defendant may receive an extended-term sentence due to his prior conviction for aggravated battery in Iroquois County case No. 12-CF-11. See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40(a) (West 2018). Three days later, the trial court held the preliminary hearing.

¶ 8 At the beginning of the preliminary hearing, the trial court appointed defendant counsel. The State presented the testimony of Officer Ryan. Officer Ryan testified he was told during the investigation defendant and Greg were in a "dating relationship of sorts." He also testified that, before the State filed the charge in this case, defendant made contact with Paxton police sergeant Robert Yates at the jail. Officer Ryan testified that, during defendant's conversation with Sergeant Yates, defendant explained he and Greg were "fighting like MMA fighters or UFC fighters" and not wrestling on September 1, 2019. Defendant admitted to Sergeant Yates that, during the fighting, he had struck Greg in the head causing blood to come out of Greg's mouth. When they were done fighting, defendant and Greg left defendant's apartment together, and Greg fell. After Greg fell, defendant stomped on him. Defendant demonstrated a "pretty hefty strike" for Sergeant Yates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found probable cause. At defendant's request, the case was set for the January 2020 jury term.

¶ 9 In January 2020, the State moved for an extension of the speedy-trial term under section 103-5(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Procedure Code) (725 ILCS 5/103-5(c) (West 2018)), noting it was still waiting on deoxyribonucleic acid analysis results. Defendant objected to the motion, and the trial court granted the State's motion. The court set defendant's jury trial for April 13, 2020. In March 2020, the State made an offer of an eight-year sentencing cap in exchange for defendant's plea of guilty. After consulting with his attorney, defendant rejected the State's offer and noted he wanted his attorney removed from the case. On April 13, 2020, the court continued the case to the July 2020 jury term due to an administrative order and the parties' agreement. After a May 22, 2020, hearing, the court allowed defendant to proceed pro se. On July 6, 2020, the State moved to dismiss the charge in case 72, which the court granted.

¶ 10 B. This Case

¶ 11 On July 6, 2020, the State filed the two aggravated domestic battery charges in this case. Count I alleged that in committing domestic battery, defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm to Greg, defendant's family or household member, in that defendant struck Greg in the face with his fist and caused a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Count II asserted that, in committing domestic battery, defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm to Greg, defendant's family or household member, in that defendant stomped on Greg with his foot causing rib fractures. Both counts noted defendant may be sentenced to an extended term of 7 to 14 years' imprisonment due to his prior residential burglary conviction in Iroquois County case No. 13-CF-31.

¶ 12 The trial court held an arraignment hearing the day the State filed the charges in this case. The court read the two counts to defendant and noted he may be sentenced to an extended term of 7 to 14 years' imprisonment due to a prior residential burglary conviction. The court also explained defendant was subject to 85% sentencing and not day-for-day credit. Defendant asked if the counts were aggravated batteries, and the court noted the charge was aggravated domestic battery. After reading the charges and explaining the possible penalties, the court noted defendant was representing himself in case 72 and asked defendant if he wanted to continue representing himself, hire counsel, or have the court appoint counsel. Defendant stated he still wanted to represent himself. The court then asked defendant if he understood the charges, and defendant replied in the affirmative. Next, the court asked the following: "The minimum and maximum penalties, including in this case the possible extended, you are extended term eligible? You also understand that the sentencing, the sentencing range, the mandatory supervised release and the applicable amount of probation, fines, assessments, restitution are applicable; you do understand that; right?" Defendant replied, "Uh-huh." The court also confirmed defendant understood he could have counsel appointed for him without cost if he was indigent and the attorney representing the State was an experienced prosecutor and not defendant's attorney. Last, the court asked defendant if he wished to waive his right to counsel, and defendant said, "Yeah."

¶ 13 After waiving his right to counsel, defendant questioned the filing of new charges, and the trial court noted its lack of involvement in that decision and told defendant, if he wanted to file any motion, he would need to put it in writing and send it to the circuit clerk's office. The court set the preliminary hearing, set bond, and noted the State's voluntary dismissal of the charge in case 72. Defendant continued to ask questions. The court again informed defendant he needed to file a written motion and explained the new charges against him, including the possible extended-term sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Defendant then asked about the state of emergency due to COVID-19 and him being in custody, and the court told him the supreme court's ruling started the 120-day period over. Defendant then complained about being in custody for almost a year, and the court told defendant the speedy-trial period starts over every time it is continued by agreement. Defendant then asked if the State could continue to file different charges, and the court told defendant to send the prosecutor a letter or file a written motion.

¶ 14 On August 4, 2020, the circuit court held the preliminary hearing, at which Officer Ryan and defendant testified. After hearing the testimony, the court found the State had...