People v. Robinson

2020 IL App (4th) 180756-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEON S. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-18-0756

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

December 7, 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. 17CF1701

Honorable Thomas J. Difanis, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Cavanagh and Holder White concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) Defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both domestic battery and aggravated battery.

(2) Evidence presented at defendant's sentencing supported the felony enhancement of his DWLR offense.

(3) Defendant failed to establish that alleged improper remarks by the prosecutor during her closing argument constituted either reversible error or plain error.

(4) The trial court properly admonished and questioned potential jurors pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012).

(5) The trial court conducted an adequate Krankel inquiry into defendant's pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.

(6) Defendant's convictions for both domestic battery and aggravated battery violate the one-act, one-crime rule and remand to the trial court is necessary so that it may determine which offense is less serious and vacate that offense.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Leon S. Robinson, was found guilty of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2016)), aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(c)), and driving while his license was revoked (DWLR) (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2016)). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of five years in prison for each battery-related offense and one year in prison for DWLR. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both domestic battery and aggravated battery; (2) his DWLR conviction should be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor because the State failed to present any evidence supporting the felony enhancement of that offense; (3) he was denied a fair trial due to comments the prosecutor made during closing argument; (4) the court failed to properly admonish and question potential jurors pursuant to Illinois Supreme court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012); (5) the court did not conduct a proper 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 (6) his aggravated battery conviction must be vacated pursuant to the one-act, one-crime rule. We agree that defendant's two battery-related convictions violate the one-act, one-crime rule but remand to the trial court with directions that it determine which is the less serious of the two offenses and vacate that offense. We otherwise affirm the court's judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In December 2017, the State charged defendant with domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2016)), aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(c)), and DWLR (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2016)). It alleged that, on August 4, 2017, defendant, who had three prior domestic battery convictions, punched Tiffany Smith, with whom he had a dating relationship, in the head while "on or about *** a public way," causing Smith bodily harm. The State also asserteddefendant drove a motor vehicle on that day, while his driver's license was revoked for having committed a driving under the influence (DUI) offense (id. § 11-501) and when he had previously committed the offense of driving with a suspended or revoked license (id. § 6-303(a)).

¶ 5 In July 2018, defendant's jury trial was conducted. During voir dire, the trial court questioned potential jurors in panels of four regarding the basic principles law that apply to criminal proceedings. It utilized substantially the same procedure with each panel, initially reciting the principles as follows:

"[T]he defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him; that before the defendant can be convicted, the State must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that the defendant is not required to offer any evidence on his behalf[;] and that if the defendant does not testify, that fact can not be held against him in any way."

Immediately after its recitation of the principles, the court asked each panel whether they "underst[ood] those instructions." Every juror answered affirmatively. The court then questioned whether the jurors would "accept those instructions." Again, every juror confirmed his or her acceptance of the principles recited by the court.

¶ 6 At trial, the State presented evidence regarding an incident involving defendant and Smith on the evening of August 4, 2017, near the intersection of Windsor Road and Bel Air Court in Champaign, Illinois. At 7:16 p.m. that day, Smith telephoned 911 and requested assistance. A recording of the 911 call was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. During the call, Smith reported she recently got off work and defendant, whom she identified by name and described as her ex-boyfriend, picked her up in her car, a blue Chevy Impala. She stated defendant was "drunk"and she exited the car because he started arguing with her and was threatening to hit her. Smith identified her location as "on Windsor" by the "Masonic Lodge" and provided a description of both defendant and her vehicle. Shortly thereafter, she reported that defendant was "driving back" and asked the 911 dispatcher to "please hurry up and send somebody" because defendant was "gonna go crazy." On the recording, amidst background noises, Smith can be heard repeatedly saying "get away from me" and then the word "stop," while another voice asked, "did you call the police on me."

¶ 7 The State presented four eyewitnesses who reported observing an incident between a man and a woman while driving on Windsor Road on the evening of August 4, 2017. Three of those witnesses—Dennis Johnson and Arie and Shannon Zoller, a married couple—testified they saw the man hit the woman. Johnson testified that, as he was driving, he saw that the man "had his arm around [the woman's] neck and he was hitting her in the face." He estimated the man hit the woman more than five times. Johnson parked and exited his vehicle to confront the man. He tried to pull the man's arm away from the woman's neck and, ultimately, the man released her. The man then took "a swing at" Johnson. The woman told the man to leave Johnson alone, and then the man got into a vehicle and drove away from the scene.

¶ 8 Johnson identified defendant as the man he saw. He also identified a photograph of Smith as depicting the woman involved in the altercation. Johnson testified Smith appeared upset and was acting "[l]ike she had sustained a hit that would hurt her." Smith's neck also "looked a little red."

¶ 9 The Zollers testified that while driving on Windsor Road, they saw a man and woman struggling and the man strike or hit the woman multiple times. They parked their vehicleand went to offer their assistance to the woman. Arie testified that by the time he reached the man and woman, another person appeared to have separated them. Both of the Zollers observed the man get into a car and drive away. Arie identified defendant as the man he observed. Both of the Zollers identified a photograph of Smith as depicting the woman involved in the incident. Arie testified Smith appeared distraught and disheveled, and he recalled seeing marks on her shoulder and neck. Shannon testified she spoke with Smith for a long time after the incident. She described Smith as emotional, distraught, and distressed. Shannon also observed that Smith was disheveled with marks on her neck and "back area."

¶ 10 As part of its case, the State also called Smith as a witness. Smith testified she worked as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) and was in a romantic relationship with defendant for 10 years, beginning in 2007. On August 4, 2017, the two were not "together"; however, Smith allowed defendant to use her car, a blue Chevy Impala, while she was at work. When she got done with work, defendant picked her up. As the two were driving on Windsor Road, they got into an argument, and defendant pulled over. Smith exited the vehicle and, after defendant drove away, she called 911. Smith testified she remained on the phone with the 911 dispatcher as defendant returned to the scene. According to Smith, upon his return, defendant exited her car and tried to talk to her. He also tried to get Smith to get back in her car, but she refused and walked away from him. Smith denied that defendant yelled at her or that the two were involved in any physical altercation. After she refused to get back into the car, defendant left the scene for a second time.

¶ 11 Smith acknowledged that other people arrived on the scene while defendant was still present. She also recalled speaking with a police officer who responded to her 911 call. Smith testified she told the officer she wanted to report that her vehicle was stolen but denied telling himwhat the other people on the scene were doing to try to help her or that defendant tried "to swing" at one of those people. She also denied nodding in response to information provided by the other individuals who were present.

¶ 12 Smith identified photographs taken of her at the scene of the incident by the police. The photographs were admitted into evidence and showed marks on Smith's face, neck, and chest.

¶ 13 Smith agreed that there were "times in the past" when she and defendant were involved in "altercations" that had "gotten physical and [defendant] ha[d] hit [her]." She agreed that those physical altercations had happened more than once. Regarding an incident in February 2017, the following colloquy occurred between the State and Smith:

"Q. So did [defendant] get physical with you on

...