People v. Moore

2023 IL App (1st) 211421

217 N.E.3d 1151

466 Ill.Dec. 875

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

v.Robert MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-21-1421

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, THIRD DIVISION.

Filed February 22, 2023

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Adrienne E. Sloan, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Joseph Alexander, Hareena Meghani-Wakely, Ashlee Cuza, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE D.B. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant Robert Moore appeals his conviction after a jury trial for armed robbery with a firearm and his sentence of 45 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the State failed to prove he committed armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt where no firearm was recovered or presented at trial and eyewitness testimony described the firearm as an "old school" or "cowboy" style weapon, (2) he was denied a fair trial where the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other crimes and refused to excuse a juror who formerly worked with a State witness, (3) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his request for standby counsel, (4) the trial court's conduct throughout the proceedings indicated severe bias that denied him a fair trial, and (5) his 45-year sentence was an excessive trial tax. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State charged defendant in Cook County circuit court with two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated unlawful restraint in connection with an incident that occurred on April 4, 2016, in a Family Dollar store located at 51 East 71st Street in Chicago.

¶ 4 A. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 5 At a hearing on June 29, 2017, defendant informed the court that he wanted to file a motion against his appointed counsel. He and counsel "got into an altercation," and counsel was "saying stuff *** like he's the prosecution, like he's working for the prosecution." Counsel also sent a letter advising defendant to "cop-out" because he could receive a natural life sentence if convicted. Counsel, who had not seen the motion, expressed concern that it may disclose privileged information to the State. When the court pointed out that his attorney was trying to protect him, defendant responded that he did not trust counsel. This exchange followed:

"THE COURT: He's been in front of me about two years I've seen him work—

DEFENDANT: I'm not going to argue with you about me trying to file something in the courts, I just told you I wanted to file this with the Court.

THE COURT: If you want to file the motion, you can file the motion regarding the attorney, but with respect to any other motions that deal with your case, I don't think you have the right to file pro se motions on aspects of your case. ***

DEFENDANT: I've been here eight months, and he ain't filed not one thing.

THE COURT: You're wrong about that.

DEFENDANT: He hasn't.

* * *

THE COURT: *** [The] motion I'll consider is your motion regarding his representation, that's the motion I'll allow you to file. So pick that one out—

DEFENDANT: All that's the same.

THE COURT: Let me pass it. Give all the motions to your lawyer so he can try to just make sure the appropriate one is filed.

DEFENDANT: I want you to understand—

THE COURT: Number one, you don't talk when I'm talking.

DEFENDANT: I'm going to—

THE COURT: You don't talk when I'm talking. Take him out of here.

DEFENDANT: You b***. I don't care.

THE COURT: Oh boy, you're a tough guy. You're a tough guy, aren't you, Mr. Moore?

DEFENDANT: You can't tell me I can't file nothing."

¶ 6 After reviewing defendant's motion, the court found no basis to appoint an attorney other than the public defender. The court informed defendant that the State wanted to introduce evidence of prior crimes, and his counsel planned to file a motion to preclude such evidence at trial. The court understood defendant's frustration but advised him to let counsel "do his job."

¶ 7 On July 24, 2017, defendant attempted to file a pro se motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The court scheduled the motion for consideration on the next court date.

¶ 8 On August 21, 2017, defense counsel informed the court that he discussed the pro se motion with defendant. They agreed to work as a team, and counsel would file the motion at a later date. "[A]t this time there is nothing to be said on that motion and we are not asking to file." Counsel then asked defendant, "Is that correct? Is that our position?" Defendant answered, "No. I am asking to file it." The court ruled that it would withdraw defendant's pro se motion and allow counsel to file the motion. On September 29, 2017, a new attorney from the public defender's office appeared on behalf of defendant.

¶ 9 On November 2, 2017, a third public defender appeared for defendant. She informed the court that defendant wanted to proceed pro se. The court advised defendant to "think long and hard about making such a choice" because those that choose self-representation "end up giving away more than [they] ever gained." The court, however, would honor defendant's decision.

¶ 10 At a hearing on February 1, 2018, defendant informed the court that he wished to proceed pro se. The court admonished defendant about the risks of representing himself, including his inability to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal, and warned that he would not receive special consideration or extra time to prepare. Also, the court would not appoint a public defender or any attorney to assist him during the trial. The court reviewed each charge against defendant and reminded him that, if convicted, he faced a potential sentence of mandatory natural life in prison. The court continued:

"Q. And you want to avoid that, I assume?

A. Yes. If I beat my case, yes.

Q. But if you don't beat it.

A. I understand the consequences.

* * *

Q. Do you understand, Mr. Moore, presenting a defense is not a simple matter of just telling your story, you would have to adhere to all the various technical rules that govern the conduct of any trial. Do you understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand that when you're represented by an attorney the lawyer *** already has substantial experience and training in various trial procedures and the prosecutor's office that would be trying to prove your guilt and put you in the penitentiary for the rest of your life, they in fact will be represented by experienced attorneys. Do you understand that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand that because you as a layman and not a lawyer might very well be unfamiliar with legal procedures. You might end up allowing the prosecution [ ] to have an advantage because you failed to make objections to what might arguably be inadmissible evidence. You might not make effective usage of certain rights that you have *** and you might also make tactical decisions that could produce unintended consequences. Do you understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

* * *

Q. Do you understand that you will not receive any special considerations from the Court merely because you are a nonlawyer. You would be expected to act in the courtroom as if you were in fact a lawyer. Do you understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand you don't receive any extra time for preparation or any greater library time to prepare your defense should you be representing yourself?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand that an attorney can render very important assistance to a client. An attorney can determine the existence of a possible defense to the charges against you through consultations with the prosecutor. The attorney might be able to obtain a reduced charge or a lesser penalty. ***

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand that if I do accept your decision to represent yourself then you will not be given the opportunity to change your mind during the course of or on the eve of trial?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand, sir, that I would not appoint the Public Defender's office or any other attorney to assist you during the course or any stage of this trial if you choose to dismiss them as your attorney?

A. Yes, sir.

* * *

Q. Any questions about any of the things that I have said to you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Knowing all of those risks that you run and knowing that you face the potential penalties described including a mandatory natural life sentence if you're convicted of either count of armed robbery, is it still your decision to dismiss the Office of the Public Defender and represent yourself in these proceedings?

A. Yes, sir."

¶ 11 The trial court found that defendant knowingly and voluntarily exercised his right "to discharge his appointed counsel and represent himself in these proceedings."

¶ 12 On March 9, 2018, the trial court allowed defendant to withdraw his request to proceed pro se , and private counsel filed an appearance. On May 23, 2018, counsel informed the court that defendant no longer wanted him as his attorney. The court questioned defendant:

"Q. Oh, oh, oh, okay. All right. Mr. Moore, what's the problem?

A. The problem is that I be asking him to do certain things and he keep denying me motions. He said we don't have no motions to file. Not one motion. And I know for a fact we got motions to file.

Q. What motions do you want him to file?

A. The identification motions, suggestive motion, perjury motions. And he is telling me that we don't no [sic ] motions to file and I read over all this stuff. ***

Q. Well, if you have a problem with Mr. Himel here, how do you anticipate resolving it? Are you going to [hire] a different lawyer?

A. I'll represent myself and file my own motions and argue my own motions. Because if he saying he is not going to file my motions and I know we have motions to be filed, that's—I can't accept that. And we have fourth amendment rights violation motions.

Q. Can you afford to hire a lawyer to represent yoursel[f]?

A. No.

Q. If Mr. Himel is

...