People v. Mitchell

1

2024 IL App (1st) 240274-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEGEN MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-24-0274B

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

April 18, 2024

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 Cook County. No. 2460000734 Honorable Jerome C. Barrido, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court. Justice McBride concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HOWSE PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's pretrial detention order is affirmed; the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the offenses charged; (2) based on the specific, articulable facts of the case defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of a person, persons, or the community; and (3) based on the specific, articulable facts of the case, no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.

¶ 2 Defendant, Legen Mitchell, appeals from an order entered by the circuit court of Cook County granting the State's petition for pretrial detention. For the following reasons we affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On January 20, 2024, the State charged defendant, Legen Mitchell, with first-degree murder in that he allegedly without lawful justification, caused the death of Terrel Scott.

¶ 5 On the same day of filing charges, the State filed a petition for a pretrial detention hearing. The State alleged in its petition that the proof is evident or the presumption is great that defendant: (1) has committed an eligible offense set forth in section 110-6.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), (a)(1.5) (West 2022)); and (2) poses a real and present threat to the safety of a person, persons, or the community based on the specific articulable facts of the case in that:

"[defendant] came to the victim's house to meet with [the] victim's friends in [the] victim's garage[.] *** [T]wo co-offenders entered the garage, one of them shooting the victim [and] killing him[.] *** [A witness observed defendant] run from the scene, get into a co-offender's vehicle, and fle[e]. Text messages from [defendant's] phone reference a police investigation into him and that all three offenders should 'stand tall' and not tell police anything, as well as burning the vehicle and/or changing its [sic] [license] plates. [Defendant] admitted picking up the two alleged co-offenders but stated that they put a gun to his head;"

and (3) no condition or combination of conditions set forth in 725 ILCS 5/110-10(b) can mitigate the risk.

¶ 6 On January 22, 2024, after a hearing, the trial court granted the State's petition for pretrial detention and entered an order that defendant was to remain in custody pending trial. The trial court's written order states that the proof is evident that defendant committed an eligible offense in the form of first-degree murder by accountability, specifically noting that, although defendant claims his participation was at gunpoint, defendant never called police; that defendant poses a real and present threat because defendant participated in setting up a neighborhood drug dealer to be murdered and, when the drug dealer was murdered, defendant was seen where the shooters were walking, defendant was present at the murder, and, after the murder, defendant drove the shooters from the scene. The trial court found defendant was a willing and active participant in the murder. Finally, the court's written order states that no conditions can mitigate the real and present threat defendant poses, as electronic home monitoring is inappropriate for the specific facts of this case where defendant "sets up, is a part of, and helps the shooters escape a murder." The trial court further found that "witnesses are in danger from this execution style killing that [defendant] played a role in and the community is at risk as well."

¶ 7 At the pretrial detention hearing, the State proffered evidence that the victim was in his garage, which was set up as a living space, with two other men who are now witnesses to the murder. One of the witnesses was in communication with defendant via text message regarding the sale of cannabis. Defendant messaged the witness to indicate he was on his way to the witness's location. Surveillance cameras captured defendant arriving and going into the garage. Defendant was identifiable in the video by his clothing and, additionally defendant admitted to being on the scene. Defendant entered the garage through a side door, and he closed the side door behind him. Thirty seconds later, two persons dressed in all black and wearing masks are captured on video "creeping around the side of the garage near the same side door that the defendant *** entered." The two people dressed in black were outside the door for approximately one minute. The victim and witness heard the "jiggling of the door" and the victim went toward the door to see what was happening. The State claimed that, as soon as the victim opened the door, one of the persons outside shot the victim in the head. Both of the people dressed in black fled on foot. As seen on the surveillance video and by his own admission, defendant stepped over the victim's body and ran out of the same door and toward the front of the residence. Defendant fled in the opposite direction of the two people dressed in black, reentered the vehicle he arrived in, and drove away. Both witnesses identified defendant as the person who had been in the garage with them.

¶ 8 Prior to the shooting, phone records show that defendant's phone and a phone belonging to his cousin, Lyles, were tracking together and the phones were again tracking together after the shooting. A video recording from a gas station in the area showed defendant with Lyles (who police identified from a prior traffic stop and the cell phone he carried) in the vehicle in which defendant arrived at the victim's home. That vehicle was registered to Lyles. Lyles's phone is turned off before the murder, then turned back on after the murder while it continues to track with defendant's phone for the next two hours before the phones go their separate ways.

¶ 9 Surveillance video shows the subject vehicle driving in the area before the shooting with "two individuals dressed in black appearing to walk alongside the vehicle" but no identifications can be made and "[n]either individual is seen entering the [vehicle] or [are] able to be seen talking to any occupants" of the vehicle. The surveillance video only shows two individuals dressed in black with the vehicle driving nearby where the two individuals are walking alongside the vehicle.

¶ 10 Police later arrested defendant on a separate charge and questioned him about the murder. In that questioning, defendant admitted being in the garage when the shooting occurred, he admitted to driving the vehicle, and he admitted to buying cannabis from the witness in the garage. However, defendant stated that he "only came there to buy weed and denied knowing the two [perpetrators]." Defendant stated he did not know the victim that well, had no issue with the victim, and denied even seeing the shooting-having only heard it as his back was turned. Defendant admitted being with Lyles but stated that he was only with Lyles after going to the garage to purchase cannabis. Defendant denied driving anyone to or from the garage but, when confronted with the video evidence, defendant stated "he was forced to pick up two men in black a block over from the location of the murder after the shooting who put guns to his head." Defendant was not specific as to what, if anything, was said or where he dropped the two men off after the shooting. Defendant denied Lyles was with him but stated that he picked up Lyles later.

¶ 11 Another witness, not in the garage, stated that two men in black clothing hopped a gate at the back of the garage after the shots were fired. Those men were followed by a vehicle matching the description of the vehicle defendant drove, and the vehicle appeared to be following the two men.

¶ 12 The State included in its proffer the text message evidence implicating defendant and additionally informed the court that defendant was a party to a conversation in which defendant stated he did not want to be at a block party because the police may be there. In a subsequent interview with police, defendant "essentially told the same story *** except this time he denied what he said about picking up the two men in black" and denied remembering the text messages. Defendant "maintained that neither h[e] nor Lyles had anything to do with the murder."

¶ 13 The State acknowledged in its proffer that defendant does not have any criminal history. The State pointed out, however, that defendant did have a pending domestic violence case that was a misdemeanor only.

¶ 14 Proceeding to its argument, the State highlighted that it is what defendant "does before and what he does after [the shooting] is what we're arguing shows that he was in agreement with these two individuals in black." The State argued that defendant set up the cannabis deal. The State argued that the evidence showed defendant's cousin, Lyles, was one of the two shooters. The State pointed out that, in one of the surveillance videos from a gas station which was recorded before the shooting, Lyles "has on all black and he has a mask and the individuals that come around the side of the [garage] *** 30 seconds after [defendant] enters this [garage] they're...