People v. Sanders

2020 IL App (3d) 180215

182 N.E.3d 151

450 Ill.Dec. 705

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

v.Jason D. SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-18-0215

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed December 31, 2020

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Andrew J. Boyd, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

James Devine, State's Attorney, of Watseka (Patrick Delfino, Thomas D. Arado, and Mark A. Austill, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant Jason D. Sanders was tried by a jury and acquitted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The jury convicted Sanders of aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle and the lesser-included criminal trespass to a vehicle. He was sentenced to two consecutive seven-year terms, to be served "day-for-day." He challenges both the conviction and the sentence. We reverse and remand.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On January 3, 2017, Jason Sanders, a black man from Memphis, Arkansas, accepted a job as a truck driver for Mika Logistics. Sanders was instructed to come to the company headquarters in Addison, Illinois, with one of their truck drivers.

Sanders rode with a company truck driver, Dexter Ortiz, from Memphis, Arkansas, to a Pilot gas station in Gilman, Illinois, where he was told that he would switch trucks and ride with another driver to Addison. Sanders entered the other truck, where the driver was not present and began to move items from the front seat to the sleeping cabin. The driver, Krzystof Bogucki, entered his truck to find Sanders moving his items. Bogucki did not have knowledge that Sanders would be in his truck or that Sanders was expected to ride with him to Addison. This led to an altercation, which escalated to a physical fight in the ditch of the gas station. Bogucki was shot twice, Sanders drove away in Bogucki's truck.

¶ 4 Sanders was charged with attempted first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1 (West 2016)), aggravated battery ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2016)), aggravated discharge of a firearm ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2) (West 2016)), unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2016)), and unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle ( 625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1) (West 2016)). The case proceeded to trial on May 16, 2017. During voir dire , the trial court inconsistently asked the panels of jurors if they "accepted and agreed to apply" the principles of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). Evidence was presented by the State, and defense rested without submitting evidence. Defense counsel provided a closing statement as follows:

"They had so many pictures and so many things or the other thing is he's black and black man belongs in a squad car in a cage. So that's either prejudicial, they want to be prejudiced against it. I don't see any other reason. ***

* * *

*** It's undisputed that Krzystof Bogucki, or whatever, goes—he sees a black guy in the passenger seat going through things and he thinks—he thinks he's being robbed or he's stealing something. ***

* * *

*** I guarantee you, as he said it's undisputed, he went there, he thought he was being robbed or something, was stealing, the very first thing you do call 911. You don't go up there, oh, black guy, I don't know who it is. I'm in a white community, a big black guy is in my car passenger seat, but I'm not going to get in the cab with him and, you know what, I'm also very calm, I'm calm hoping to calm him down. ***

* * *

*** Well, you know something, and I like to think I'm not a bigot, but or racist, but if I was in the south side of Chicago in an all-black area that I thought was dangerous and I'm the only white guy, I guarantee you I don't care what's happening I'm out of there and they can talk to me later. But I'm not going to stay because here's a black man in a whole white area afraid to possibly—because he's the only black guy and white guy thinks he can be in trouble.

* * *

*** [I]f I've gone through the town and I see confederate flags and that's fine, everybody can have their own, but to a black man that symbolizes slavery or racism. He's a white man in a totally white place, never been there before. I would have been scared if I was a white guy in a totally bad place and they had black men, there are signs all over the place, I would be scared to death and I want to get out of there.***.

* * *

*** They are going to say that that showed intent to flee in a guilty mind and I'm saying you could also interpret that to be someone is afraid, scared in a white area, in an area that he doesn't know anyone and there's stories on both sides. The black abusing people and whites abusing people of race I'm talking about and could have been scared.

* * *

*** Do you believe that he would be calm? If you saw a black man, any man to be honest with you, sitting in the car, I don't know him and he's going through things, yeah I'm calm. No. Uh-uh. I am not calm. I am far from calm when I see that and it scares me. ***

* * *

*** He's a black guy in a white area and I hate to say it but it's true. Blacks don't trust whites and a lot of whites don't trust blacks. I wouldn't trust them if I was on the south side of Chicago, I'm out of there. Even if I did something wrong I'm out of there. I don't trust that I would be safe, I'm sorry. I don't think he did either.

* * *

I'm asking that the black man comes into this county is given the same, same courtesy as if a white man was sitting there. *** And I think a lot of people live here, I'm not sure, just because it's a better environment to raise kids or to live safe. But it's also important that if you are going to live in this community besides those goals you want to be fair, you want to give a man who's a stranger a fair hearing ***. ***

*** Wouldn't you call the police? There's a black guy in there. Big black guy, kind of big. I would be afraid. I'm sorry, I would be afraid. ***

* * *

*** Let's find this black son of a gun guilty because he can't explain where the gun is."

¶ 5 As Sanders describes in his police interview, he was told to ride in Bogucki's truck, and so he began to prepare his place. Bogucki entered the truck and did not know Sanders or why he was present and began to react. Bogucki did not speak English, making the interaction more complicated. Sanders claims Bogucki pulled a gun and demanded that he exit the truck. The altercation moved outside the truck, where Bogucki charged Sanders, and the two began to tussle. Sanders describes that, amongst the chaos, the gun accidentally fired twice and shot Bogucki. Bogucki lay in the ditch where the altercation took place. Sanders claims that the gun fell into the ditch and that he does not own or possess a gun. Sanders then left the scene in the truck, headed south on Interstate 57 toward his home, and called his girlfriend to say he thought he "shot a dude" and that he believed he was going to be arrested. He did not call the police and was arrested in the Champaign area (about 51 miles from Gilman).

¶ 6 Bogucki testified that he entered the truck to find Sanders. After a verbal altercation, Sanders pulled out a gun and demanded that he exit the truck. Bogucki was then forced out of the truck by Sanders, where a physical altercation ensued. Bogucki tried to take the gun from Sanders, when he was shot in the chest and shoulder. He claims to have played dead, leading Sanders to flee the scene with the truck. Bogucki then cried out and walked into the gas station, where the cashier and manager aided him and called the police. This incident led the police to search for and arrest Sanders.

¶ 7 Witnesses and law enforcement officers testified to their involvement in the response to. and investigation of, the incident and the arrest and interrogation of Sanders. Only the victim and defendant were present for the altercation involved in the arrest and charges in this case. The ditch and retention pond were both pumped, however, the gun was never found.

¶ 8 Sanders was found guilty of aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and criminal trespass to a vehicle. He was found not guilty of all other charges. He was sentenced on August 11, 2017, to two consecutive seven-year terms of imprisonment for aggravated battery and unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The sentences were to be served day for day (clarified as 50%). The written sentencing order did not include the percentage of service for either sentence.

¶ 9 Sanders filed a motion to reconsider the sentence on September 11, 2017. The record included a handwritten letter from Sanders to the court, stating that the Department of Corrections had incorrectly calculated his sentence and was requiring him to serve 85% of that sentence. During a hearing on April 5, 2018, the court observed that the motion to reconsider was filed past the 30-day deadline. The defense pointed out that since the motion was filed on the Monday after the deadline (deadline was reached on a Saturday or Sunday), the motion was timely. The court denied the motion as untimely and did not reach the merits of the motion. Notice of appeal was filed on April 16, 2018.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 Sanders argues that the court erred by not properly administering the Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012) principles. He also argues that the court erred in denying his motion for reconsidering sentencing. We acknowledge these arguments, but they will not be analyzed, as the court is overturning on the ineffective assistance of counsel issue. Sanders argues that he did not receive a fair trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel, as counsel inserted his race into the trial improperly, causing prejudice.

¶ 12 To prove ineffective assistance of c...