Case Law People v. Reed

People v. Reed

Document Cited Authorities (37) Cited in (64) Related

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Manuela Hernandez, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Joseph Alexander, and Elliott Englander, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant-appellant, Gregory Reed, was arrested by Chicago police on suspicion of attempted murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated discharge of a firearm after an individual fired several shots at a group standing outside a nightclub on Chicago's south side. Defendant proceeded to a bench trial. After trial, the court entered a finding of guilty on 14 of the 16 charges. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The trial court then sentenced defendant as follows: 40 years on the attempted murder counts, 30 years on the attempted murder counts (personal discharge of a firearm), 50 years on the attempted murder counts (great bodily harm/permanent disfigurement), 30 years on the aggravated battery count, and 15 years on the aggravated discharge of a firearm counts. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider sentence.

¶ 2 Defendant raises several issues on appeal. Defendant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of attempted murder, (2) the State failed to prove one of the victims, Mark Johnson (Johnson), was present when the shooting occurred, (3) the State failed to prove another victim, Terrence West, suffered great bodily harm or permanent disfigurement, (4) the trial court failed to address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim pursuant to People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), (5) the trial court improperly considered elements of his crime as aggravating factors during sentencing, (6) his sentences were excessive in light of the mitigating factors, and (7) several of his convictions must be vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule.

¶ 3 After reviewing the record and relevant case law, we find the State presented sufficient evidence to prove defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted. We agree with defendant that a Krankel hearing did not occur. We find the trial court did not improperly consider elements of his crimes as aggravating factors and his sentence is not excessive. The State concedes the one-act, one-crime rule has been violated, and we therefore vacate several of defendant's convictions pursuant to this rule. We remand for a new Krankel hearing.

¶ 4 JURISDICTION

¶ 5 On February 18, 2015, the court entered guilty verdicts for attempted murder, attempted murder (personally discharging a firearm), attempted murder (great bodily harm/permanent disfigurement), aggravated battery, and aggravated discharge of a firearm. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied on November 23, 2015. On December 17, 2015, defendant was sentenced. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the court denied on January 12, 2016. A notice of appeal was filed February 1, 2016. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 and 606, governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case entered below. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ; Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 603, 606 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).

¶ 6 BACKGROUND

¶ 7 The State charged defendant-appellant, Reed, with the following crimes: attempted murder of peace officer Errol Hicks (count I), attempted murder of West while armed with a firearm (count II), attempted murder of Hicks while armed with a firearm (count III), attempted murder of Johnson while armed with a firearm (count IV), attempted murder of Terrel Henkins while armed with a firearm (count V), attempted murder of West while personally discharging a firearm (count VI), attempted murder of Hicks while personally discharging a firearm (count VII), attempted murder of Johnson while personally discharging a firearm (count VIII), attempted murder of Henkins while personally discharging a firearm (count IX), attempted murder of West causing great bodily harm (count X), attempted murder of West causing permanent disfigurement (count XI), aggravated battery for shooting West (count XII), aggravated discharge of a firearm for shooting at Hicks while Hicks engaged in his official duties as a police officer (count XIII), aggravated discharge of a firearm for shooting at Hicks (count XIV), aggravated discharge of a firearm for shooting at Johnson (count XV), and aggravated discharge of a firearm for shooting at Henkins (count XVI).

¶ 8 The charges stemmed from a September 1, 2011, shooting outside the 50 Yard Line, a club on the south side of Chicago. The State alleged that defendant shot at a group of individuals, injuring one of them, West. Defendant proceeded to a bench trial.

¶ 9 At trial, the State presented several witnesses to establish defendant as the shooter. Chicago police officer Hicks testified that in the early hours of September 1, 2011, he was at a club called the 50 Yard Line, located on 75th Street in Chicago. Hicks was not on duty and planned to meet up with Henkins, who was deejaying at the club. Hicks went inside the 50 Yard Line and stayed for approximately 45 minutes before it unexpectedly closed early. After the closing, Hicks helped Henkins carry his equipment to a car parked outside.

¶ 10 Between 2:15 a.m. and 2:20 a.m., after finishing loading the equipment, Hicks, Henkins, Terrance West, Johnson, J.R. Jackson, and "some other females" were standing around a car located on the south side of 75th Street just a "little bit west" of the club. Hicks stood in the street near the front tire on the driver's side of the car, facing northeast, with his back to the driver's side of the car. As the group stood there, Hicks heard multiple gun shots. As a Chicago police officer, Hicks recognized the sounds of gunfire. Hicks looked over his left shoulder toward the direction of the gunshots and saw defendant with a gun. Defendant stood on the same side of the street as Hicks "in the grass of the corner house on 75th and Wabash [Avenue]." Another male individual stood "a little bit behind [the shooter], to his left, by a small bush." Hicks observed the shooter in the grass with "his arm up holding a gun pointing it" in the direction of the group. Defendant continued to fire the gun as he moved closer to the group. Of the two individuals, Hicks only observed defendant with a gun.

¶ 11 Hicks "ducked down on the side of car," but he was able to "keep[ ] a visual on [the shooter]" through the car's window. He observed defendant fire his gun in the group's direction again. Stepping away from the car, Hicks announced his office by yelling "police." Defendant continued to shoot. Hicks unholstered his service weapon and shot in the direction of defendant. Defendant fired one more time before fleeing with his companion south on Wabash Avenue. Hicks gave chase to the corner of 75th Street and Wabash Avenue. He observed the pair enter a gangway running east toward Michigan Avenue. Hicks then lost sight of the pair.

¶ 12 Hicks returned to the vehicle to check on his friends, but did not see West. West had run "down the alley of the 7400 block in between Wabash Avenue and Michigan Avenue." When Hicks saw West again, West had "blood on his hand and also on his shirt." When the first pair of active Chicago police officers arrived on the scene Hicks provided a description of the two individuals. Those officers left to search the area and eventually returned with defendant. Hicks identified the man the officers had in custody as the individual who had shot at them a short time ago. In court, Hicks again identified defendant as the shooter.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Hicks testified he realized West was shot when he saw West in the alley. West was approximately two house lengths away from the car at that point. Hicks informed the court that he was not in uniform at the time and had nothing on his outward appearance identifying him as a police officer. Hicks testified that defendant was about one house length away when the shooting occurred. He heard one shot initially, another shot after taking cover, a third after he announced his office, and a fourth shot while shooting back. Hicks did not know if the car took any damage.

¶ 14 Henkins testified that he was deejaying at the 50 Yard Line club located at 69 East 75th Street in the early morning hours of September 1, 2011. While working, Henkins got into an altercation with some individuals who had to be escorted from the club. After being paid, Hicks assisted Henkins in carrying his DJ equipment to the car. Once the equipment was loaded into the car, the men chatted with Jackson, Johnson, and Kevin Johnson (Kevin). Henkins positioned himself in the street toward the front of the car and was facing north while the group spoke. Hicks was "right near" Henkins.

¶ 15 While standing in the street, he heard what he initially believed to be fireworks. When he looked around he noticed the others in the group ducking down. Henkins looked around some more and observed the defendant pointing a gun at him and shooting. Defendant was standing with another individual, but Henkins could not get a good look at the other individual. Henkins could see only defendant had a firearm. Henkins could see the shooter standing on the lawn of the house at the corner of 75th Street and Wabash Avenue on the same side of the street as him. Upon seeing what direction the shots were coming from, Henkins ducked behind the car. Through the windshield, Henkins could see the defendant walking closer and...

5 cases
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2020
People v. Thompson
"...rehabilitative potential is not entitled to greater weight than the seriousness of the offense. People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 62, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642. ¶ 105 When a trial court imposes a sentence within the permitted statutory range, as occurred in the case at bar..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2020
People v. Guerrero
"...rehabilitative potential is not entitled to greater weight than the seriousness of the offense. People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 62, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642. ¶ 52 When a trial court imposes a sentence within the permitted statutory range, a reviewing court will start wi..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2021
People v. Boyd
"...to present defendant's meritorious allegations to the trial court at this adversarial hearing. People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 52, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642.¶ 53 We find that Krankel counsel, in properly dispensing her obligations after being appointed, preserved the cla..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2022
People v. Palomera
"...¶ 59 Rather, in determining whether the trial court satisfied the requirements of Krankel , we find People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642, instructive. In that case, the defendant filed a pro se posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance of counse..."
Document | Illinois Supreme Court – 2019
People v. Johnson
"...offense was the primary aggravating factor on which the circuit court relied in imposing sentence"); People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 54, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642 ("defendant argues his 50-year sentence * * * is excessive because the trial court improperly considered ele..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2020
People v. Thompson
"...rehabilitative potential is not entitled to greater weight than the seriousness of the offense. People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 62, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642. ¶ 105 When a trial court imposes a sentence within the permitted statutory range, as occurred in the case at bar..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2020
People v. Guerrero
"...rehabilitative potential is not entitled to greater weight than the seriousness of the offense. People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 62, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642. ¶ 52 When a trial court imposes a sentence within the permitted statutory range, a reviewing court will start wi..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2021
People v. Boyd
"...to present defendant's meritorious allegations to the trial court at this adversarial hearing. People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 52, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642.¶ 53 We find that Krankel counsel, in properly dispensing her obligations after being appointed, preserved the cla..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2022
People v. Palomera
"...¶ 59 Rather, in determining whether the trial court satisfied the requirements of Krankel , we find People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642, instructive. In that case, the defendant filed a pro se posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance of counse..."
Document | Illinois Supreme Court – 2019
People v. Johnson
"...offense was the primary aggravating factor on which the circuit court relied in imposing sentence"); People v. Reed , 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 54, 427 Ill.Dec. 441, 118 N.E.3d 642 ("defendant argues his 50-year sentence * * * is excessive because the trial court improperly considered ele..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex