People v. Patton

2020 IL App (4th) 170947-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBBIE M. PATTON, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0947

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

June 15, 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 Champaign County

No. 16CF1349

Honorable Roger B. Webber, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) Defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on the State's failure to timely disclose favorable impeachment evidence where the evidence was not "material."

(2) Defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial due to the ineffectiveness of his defense counsel or the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

(3) The trial court did not commit reversible error when inquiring into defendant's pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

(4) Defendant forfeited his sentencing claim of error and the plain-error doctrine does not apply to excuse his forfeiture.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Robbie M. Patton, was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014)) and three counts of aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 60 years for first-degree murder and 9 years for each aggravated-battery conviction. Defendantappeals, arguing (1) he is entitled to a new trial due to the State's failure to timely disclose information favorable to him in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (2) he did not receive a fair trial due to his counsels' ineffectiveness and because the court improperly allowed the admission of an unfairly prejudicial video into evidence; (3) the court erred when conducting a preliminary Krankel inquiry (see People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984)) into his pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance-of counsel claims; and (4) his 60-year prison sentence for first-degree murder was excessive. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In September 2016, the State charged defendant with three counts of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2014)) and three counts of aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)), alleging he shot and killed one victim—George Korchev—and discharged a firearm, injuring three others—Erik Lasaine, Robert Shepard, and Moses Lopez. The State's theory of the case was that defendant shot the victims after becoming angry over the battery of another individual.

¶ 5 Prior to trial, defendant filed several motions in limine, including two in which he sought to bar the State from presenting evidence that he had previously been convicted of aggravated discharge of a firearm in Champaign County case No. 15-CF-1773, and that he was on mandatory supervised release (MSR) for that crime on the date of the alleged offenses. Following a hearing, the trial court granted both motions.

¶ 6 The record reflects defendant also filed a motion in limine to bar the State from presenting evidence of a video recording posted on " 'Flipagram[,]' a mobile phone application/internet site" (Flipagram video). Defendant argued, in part, that the Flipagram videowas overly prejudicial because it depicted him "making 'finger guns' " and " 'shooting' at the camera with his 'finger guns.' " During a hearing on the motion, the State argued that the portion of the Flipagram video it intended to present consisted "of a brief approximately five to six second clip of *** defendant at the scene where the shooting occurred." It argued the clip was relevant to show defendant's location and how he was dressed prior to the shooting, as well as his mental state, i.e., that defendant had "this idea or this image of himself shooting." The trial court ultimately denied defendant's motion to bar the Flipagram video, stating as follows:

"What I see [in the Flipagram video,] in the part that is being described as the defendant pointing a finger gun[,] is the defendant smiling and joking *** to presumably a friend or colleague, and making a hand gesture that you have described as a finger gun, but in the court's experience in life, which I don't believe I'm required to set aside, friends frequently will make a gesture like that, and in the context it's not much different than waving at your friend. *** I don't think in the context that it shows any frame of mind or propensity; it shows a defendant waving or making a gesture to a friend of his. I don't think it is that prejudicial. [The] State is entitled to prove [its] case and [it] need[s] to show the defendant present at the location and then the clothing that is being worn and the things of that nature[.]"

¶ 7 In September 2017, defendant's jury trial was conducted. Evidence showed that at around 12:30 a.m. on September 25, 2016, the four victims were shot while walking on a pathway behind the Evergreen Tobacco Shop (Evergreen Tobacco), located on East Green Street in Champaign, Illinois. Korchev was shot in the "left back" and died as a result. Lasaine was also shot in the back, while Shepard and Lopez both suffered gunshot wounds to their right arms.

¶ 8 Lasaine and Shepard testified at trial along with Korchev's girlfriend, Samantha Steinburg, who had been walking with the victims on the night of the shooting. None of the witnesses observed either the shooter or anyone with a weapon. Steinburg testified that they had walked past Evergreen Tobacco and the shots sounded like they came from behind and to the left. Lasaine testified that although he did not see the shooting, he thought the shooter had been in a car that almost crashed into the group just prior to when the shooting occurred. He testified: "So just in my mind I thought that one danger [led] to the next, I thought they were connected." Lasaine, however, acknowledged that he was shot in the back and did not know "where the shots could have come from."

¶ 9 Evidence also showed that earlier the same night, a party, attended by a large number of people, occurred in an apartment above Evergreen Tobacco. After the party ended, fights broke out among the party's attendees in and around the parking lot outside the shop. During one of the fights, an individual named Edwin McCraney was battered and left lying bleeding and unconscious on the sidewalk.

¶ 10 The State's evidence showed defendant attended the party with friends. Testimony and video evidence, including the Flipagram video, showed defendant outside the area of Evergreen Tobacco on his way to the party and before the shooting. Defendant was dressed in all black and wearing a white hat and white shoes.

¶ 11 The State submitted video surveillance evidence, including footage from two different cameras outside of Evergreen Tobacco—one facing East Green Street, located to the south of the shop, and a second facing the parking lot, located to the west of the shop. The surveillance footage showed the fight involving McCraney. Following that fight, defendantappeared on the street-facing surveillance video walking up to the area where McCraney was lying on the ground. Not long after, the video showed defendant removing his white hat, pulling up the hood of his black sweatshirt and cinching it around his face, and then running off camera in the direction of the parking lot and the pathway where the shooting ultimately occurred. Approximately 10 seconds after defendant is shown running out of view, the surveillance video showed the crowd outside Evergreen Tobacco reacting to gunshots and running in the opposite direction.

¶ 12 The State presented testimony of several individuals who were located outside of Evergreen Tobacco at the time of the shooting. Brianna Allen testified she knew defendant and, at some point, the two had a dating relationship. While outside Evergreen Tobacco in the minutes before the shooting, she observed defendant yelling, "getting angry and mad," and "going crazy." Allen testified she tried to calm defendant down, but he told her to "[g]et off" of him. Shortly thereafter, she observed defendant run off in the direction of the parking lot.

¶ 13 Derrick Francois testified he knew defendant and observed the fight involving McCraney. He saw the individuals who battered McCraney move away from the scene and another group, whom he described as "the Mexicans," come up to look at McCraney. Those individuals then "ran back into the parking lot." At trial, Francois denied seeing anyone with a gun or that he observed anyone yelling about using a gun. However, the State submitted a prior videotaped statement Francois gave to the police in which he reported that, while standing near where McCraney was lying, defendant pulled out a gun and said "if anyone runs up, I'm gonna let this b**** ride." Defendant presented evidence that Francois also previously reported to the police that he saw a "tall Mexican" pull up his shirt and show a gun.

¶ 14 Desmond Droughns testified he had been at the party above Evergreen Tobacco with Lopez, one of the shooting victims. After leaving the party he observed someone outside on the ground being helped by others. Droughns testified he was walking in the parking lot when he heard the gunshots. He identified himself and his location on the parking-lot facing surveillance video. Droughns further testified that he observed the shooter, who was dressed in all black or all dark clothing. As part of his case, defendant presented the testimony of police officer Kaitlyn Fisher, who stated she spoke with Droughns at the scene and that Droughns reported he "was running away, heard multiple gunshots, and he *** looked back and saw" that Lopez had been shot.

¶ 15 Ninia LeShoure testified she attended the party and was standing in the middle of the parking lot when the shooting...