People v. Matthews

2020 IL App (4th) 170782-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EURON MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0782

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

May 26, 2020

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County

No. 17CF74

Honorable Charles H.W. Burch, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Holder White concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) The trial court did not err in granting the State's motion to strike defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the basis that he lacked standing to claim fourth-amendment protections.

(2) The State presented sufficient evidence of qualifying felony offenses to support defendant's conviction for being an armed habitual criminal.

(3) The State presented sufficient evidence to prove defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

(4) Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct had no merit.

(5) Defendant failed to establish that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance.

(6) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review claims that the prosecutor made improper remarks during his opening statement and closing argument, and, forfeiture aside, defendant's claims were without merit.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Euron Matthews, was found guilty of being an armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2016)) and aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(2)). The trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of 22 years and 15 years, respectively. Defendant appeals pro se, arguing (1) the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence, (2) the court erred by allowing the State to utilize his prior criminal charges to support the armed-habitual-criminal offense, (3) the State failed to prove him guilty of either charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, (4) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, (5) his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance, and (6) the prosecutor made improper comments during his opening statement and closing argument. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On January 25, 2017, the State brought charges against defendant based on allegations that he possessed and knowingly discharged a firearm at or into a vehicle that he knew or reasonably should have known was occupied. In charging defendant with being an armed habitual criminal, the State additionally alleged defendant had previously been convicted of (1) unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon in Will County case No. 13-CF-1670 and (2) unlawful manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in Will County case No. 92-CF-3211.

¶ 5 Prior to trial, the State filed an amended information, charging defendant with the same offenses but altering the allegations with respect to his previous criminal history. Specifically, it alleged defendant had prior convictions for (1) unlawful use of a weapon by a felon in Will County case No. 13-CF-1670, (2) unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in Will County case No. 93-CF-3211, and (3) unlawful use of a weapon by a felon inWill County case No. 94-CF-2443.

¶ 6 On June 15, 2017, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, specifically surveillance videos seized by the police following the execution of a search warrant at a residence located at 523 Lind Street in Quincy, Illinois. He alleged the evidence was illegally seized, in that the search warrant did "not name or describe the person or place to be searched with sufficient certainty," the affiant in the complaint for the search warrant "unknowingly used deliberate falsehoods and recklessly disregarded the truth," and no probable cause existed for the warrant. To his motion, defendant attached both a November 2016 complaint for a search warrant and a November 2016 search warrant for "[t]he premise and person of Felicia L. French, located at 523 Lind St[reet], Quincy, Adams County, Illinois," and both a December 2016 complaint for a search warrant and December 2016 search warrant for a "Swann Surveillance DVR" owned by French and in the custody of the Quincy Police Department.

¶ 7 On July 6, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. At the outset of the hearing, the State made an oral motion to strike the motion to suppress based on defendant's lack of standing. It argued that the search warrant defendant challenged, as shown by the attachments to his motion, was for French's premises and person, as well as a surveillance system found at French's residence. The State maintained defendant had "no ties" to French's residence and no expectation of privacy in connection with either her residence or its surveillance system. In responding to the State's motion, defendant's counsel argued defendant had standing because he had been arrested and the evidence he challenged was being used against him. Upon inquiry by the court, counsel acknowledged that defendant had no possessory interest in French's 523 Lind Street residence, stating defendant "stay[ed] there sometimes," but did notlive there; own the property; or pay rent, utilities, or grocery bills associated with the property.

¶ 8 Ultimately, the trial court granted the State's motion to strike. In so holding, the court stated as follows:

"This is a search warrant that was for the premises and the person of Felicia French. [Defendant's] certainly not Felicia French, and he has no possessory interest in the residence or the premises located at 523 Lind Street ***. The video which he wishes to suppress was found as a result of a search warrant for those premises. Whether or not the search warrant was validly given or granted is beside the point to this defendant because he's got no possessory interest in the premises. So[,] he cannot object to the search or what was found, and he has what we call no standing to contest the search warrant because it was not for a premises which he had any interest in."

¶ 9 On July 17 and 18, 2017, defendant's jury trial was conducted. The State presented evidence that at approximately 3:30 a.m. on November 12, 2016, the police were called to the scene of a traffic crash at the intersection of "6th and Lind" Streets in Quincy, Illinois. Officer David Distin testified he responded to the scene and observed two damaged vehicles. One of the vehicles was parked "along the curb." The second, a Chevrolet Malibu (Malibu), was "overturned" and in the middle of the street. The State's evidence further showed the Malibu had damage consistent with being struck by bullets, including a single bullet hole in the front driver's side door, an indentation to the front driver's side fender, and an indentation "in the front driver's side wheel or the rim."

¶ 10 Chris Billingsley, a detective with the Quincy Police Department, testified heinvestigated the November 2016 vehicle crash. In connection with that investigation, search warrants were executed at the 523 Lind Street residence. Approximately 80 hours of surveillance video recordings were obtained from five different surveillance cameras that were attached to the outside of the residence. The recordings included video from the date and time of the November 2016 crash. Billingsley testified those specific videos depicted an individual in the yard of 523 Lind Street with a gun in his hand. The same individual began shooting toward a vehicle as it drove past on Lind Street, and a muzzle flash could be seen coming from the gun. The video also showed the vehicle as it crashed into a parked car and overturned. Billingsley described the individual with the gun as an African American male with a shaved head, goatee, and a "[s]tockier build." The individual also appeared to be wearing a dark-colored jacket with "a white inlay or *** pinstripe" and some type of hands-free, Bluetooth device around his neck.

¶ 11 Billingsley further testified that he assisted the State's Attorney's office with combining the 80 hours of videos into shorter clips. He denied that anything was "altered or changed" in the videos when that occurred or that anything was "cut out *** where that suspect would have done something." Billingsley identified a compact disc (CD), which he testified contained the combined clips. The CD was admitted into evidence and shown to the jury over defendant's objection.

¶ 12 The State's evidence also showed that Billingsley did not initially know the identity of the shooter depicted in the surveillance videos. However, he showed the video and still photographs from the video to two other law enforcement officers, both of whom identified defendant as the shooter. Specifically, Mark Folkenroth, a patrol sergeant with the Quincy Police Department, testified he was familiar with defendant prior to November 2016, having "seen himwell over [100] times." In January 2017, Billingsley showed him the video of the shooting and Folkenroth recognized defendant as the shooter. Adam Gibson, a detective with the Quincy Police Department, testified he had contact with defendant "[n]umerous times" over his nearly 20-year career in law enforcement. Gibson stated he viewed still photographs and video from the surveillance footage. He also recognized defendant as the shooter.

¶ 13 After speaking with the other officers about the case, Billingsley began investigating defendant and obtained a photograph from a Facebook page under defendant's name, which had been posted on Facebook approximately 13 days after the shooting. Over defendant's objection, the Facebook photograph was shown to the jury. Over defendant's objection, the jury was also shown a photograph of defendant taken at the time of his arrest and still frames of the shooter taken from the surveillance footage. Billingsley testified the individual...