People v. Roddis

2018 IL App (4th) 170605

119 N.E.3d 52

427 Ill.Dec. 672

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

v.Ryan M. RODDIS, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0605

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

FILED November 21, 2018

James E. Chadd, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Ryan R. Wilson, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Jay Scott, State’s Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and David E. Mannchen, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of Counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 In June 2012, the State charged defendant, Ryan M. Roddis, with aggravated domestic battery ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a), 12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2010) ). Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty and sentenced him to six years in prison. Defendant filed pro se a motion to reduce sentence that also alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely.

¶ 2 On direct appeal, this court upheld defendant's conviction and sentence but remanded for a hearing in compliance with People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). People v. Roddis , 2016 IL App (4th) 140631-U, ¶ 3, 2016 WL 4005418.

¶ 3 On remand, the trial court initially appointed new counsel to represent defendant on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. However, at a subsequent hearing, the trial court allowed that counsel to withdraw because of a potential conflict.

¶ 4 In January 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing purportedly pursuant to this court's remand but deemed it a hearing on defendant's ineffective assistance claims. After reviewing defendant's written claims and questioning him and his trial counsel, the court found that the allegations did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The court then appointed new counsel to represent defendant on his motion to reduce sentence. In August 2017, the court denied that motion.

¶ 5 Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) addressing the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims instead of determining whether new counsel should have been appointed and (2) not appointing new counsel because defendant showed "possible neglect of the case." We agree with defendant's first argument, vacate the trial court's order, and remand with directions.

¶ 6 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 A. The Bench Trial and Conviction

¶ 8 In June 2012, the State charged defendant with aggravated domestic battery ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.3 (West 2010) ), alleging that he pushed his girlfriend, Meghan Collins, causing her head to hit a door, resulting in a laceration. Defendant was initially represented by Philip Tibbs. However, defendant later retained new counsel, Baku Patel, and fired Tibbs.

¶ 9 At defendant's December 2013 bench trial, Collins testified that, in June 2012, defendant was living at her apartment with their daughter. Defendant and Collins were arguing; she asked him to leave, and he refused. Defendant then picked up a pillow from the back of the couch, moved toward Collins, and began to throw the pillow out the door. Collins pushed the pillow down to prevent defendant from throwing it. Defendant then pushed Collins's head, which hit the corner of the open door, causing a laceration. Collins ran upstairs to the bathroom and called the police. Collins was later treated at the hospital and received staples to close the laceration on her head.

¶ 10 On cross-examination, Collins testified that although she told the police that defendant punched her multiple times, that is not what happened. She also admitted she was currently being charged with filing a false police report. Collins testified that she did not believe defendant meant to push her head into the door. Collins admitted she had communicated with defendant by text message and told him she thought he did not mean to push her head against the door.

¶ 11 Decatur police officer Scott Bibby responded to Collins's apartment. He stated that Collins had a laceration on her head. Defendant told Bibby the two were arguing and he threw a couch cushion at Collins to get her to stop yelling. Defendant said he did not mean to hit Collins but the cushion struck her in her head, and her head then collided with the door. Collins told Bibby that defendant had punched her in the head multiple times.

¶ 12 An emergency room physician testified that (1) she treated Collins for a laceration to her head, (2) the laceration required three staples to close, and (3) Collins reported the laceration was caused by someone grabbing her head and hitting it against a door.

¶ 13 Defendant testified that he was living with Collins and their daughter in June 2012. He and Collins were arguing when she told him to leave and began throwing his belongings out of the front door. Defendant told Collins if she was going to throw his things out, he was going to throw his couch outside. He picked up a large seat cushion and threw it toward the open door when it struck Collins in her head, causing her head to hit the door.

¶ 14 Patel asked defendant if Collins had stayed in contact with him. Defendant responded that Collins had threatened to testify against him if he did not give her money. Patel then asked if Collins admitted to him that she thought it was an accident, and defendant said she did.

¶ 15 During closing arguments, Patel argued the State failed to prove defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm because Collins admitted her injury was the result of an accident, which was also consistent with defendant's version of events. The State argued that (1) defendant knowingly committed battery and (2) the State did not need to prove the defendant intended to cause great bodily harm.

¶ 16 The trial court found defendant guilty of aggravated domestic battery, explaining that it did not find defendant's story credible. In February 2014, the court sentenced defendant to six years in prison. (We note that defendant had eight prior felony convictions.)

¶ 17 B. The Postsentence Proceedings

¶ 18 In June 2014, defendant pro se filed a motion for reduction of sentence that also raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. At a hearing at which defendant was not present, the trial court dismissed defendant's motion as untimely.

¶ 19 Defendant appealed, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court erred when it dismissed his pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without conducting a Krankel hearing. In July 2016, this court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence but remanded for a hearing in compliance with Krankel on defendant's posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Roddis , 2016 IL App (4th) 140631-U, ¶ 3.

¶ 20 C. The Proceedings on Remand

¶ 21 1. The Initial Hearing

¶ 22 In September 2016, on remand, the trial court conducted a hearing at which defendant was present. The court stated the case had been remanded for the court to consider defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court then asked defendant if he was going to represent himself "on this matter or do you want me [to] consider[ ] appoint[ing] counsel?" Defendant responded that he wanted the court to consider appointing counsel but was told by his appellate attorney that it was in the court's discretion based on the merits of his claims. The court then stated, "I'm not sure counsel is necessary, but I think counsel is always better, at least to perhaps to get me organized." The court asked the State if it disagreed, and the State said it thought "it[ ] [was] a good idea." The trial court appointed public defender Rodney Forbes to represent defendant and continued the matter for a status hearing.

¶ 23 2. The Subsequent Status Hearings

¶ 24 Later in September 2016, Forbes appeared on defendant's behalf and stated that the case had been remanded for a Krankel hearing. The trial court then stated that the case needed to be set for a "pre-inquiry Krankel hearing." Forbes agreed and requested additional time to review the file, speak with his client, and file any amended pleading if necessary. The court granted his request and continued the matter.

¶ 25 In November 2016, Forbes appeared for defendant, who was also present personally. The trial court recounted the procedural history of the case and then the following exchange took place:

"THE COURT: [The appellate court] sent the matter back for a hearing in compliance with Krankel.

And I think, Mr. Forbes, I want to certainly allow you a chance to speak, but I can probably proceed at this point with a pre-inquiry Krankel hearing before I proceed to a full-blown Krankel hearing. Would you agree with that procedural assessment, Mr. Forbes?

MR. FORBES: Well, Your Honor, in this case I was appointed to represent this defendant. Normally, I wouldn't be appointed at a pre- Krankel inquiry.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. FORBES: Normally, a pre- Krankel inquiry the attorney would be—

THE COURT: Proceed with the prior lawyer.

MR. FORBES: Right. And so that way the court can inquire as to matters of strategy and such. So I know this is set for pre- Krankel inquiry on today's date. I was prepared to represent the defendant. I have received several affidavits and correspondence from the defendant. I understand the gist of his claims. He is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel from his prior counsel, Mr. Patel.

THE COURT: So you think we would be safer, in a nutshell, Mr. Forbes, to probably just proceed with an ordinary Krankel hearing, I think is what I am hearing from you?

MR. FORBES: Well, yes, I do. And then also I need to inform the court that as public defender, I briefly represented the alleged victim in this case, Megan Collins. I represented her at [a] preliminary [hearing]. Her case was assigned to an assistant public defender. That was during while this case was pending."

¶ 26...