People v. Schoonover

2022 IL App (4th) 160882-UB

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HAYZE L. SCHOONOVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-16-0882

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

May 2, 2022

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 15CF1388 Honorable Thomas J. Difanis, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices DeArmond and Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HARRIS JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held:

(1) Defendant failed to establish that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance.

(2) The trial court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Hayze L. Schoonover, was found guilty of three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2014)) and sentenced to two 35-year terms and one 15-year term of imprisonment. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences, arguing (1) the trial court violated his right to a public trial by barring members of his family from the courtroom during the minor victim's trial testimony, (2) his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance, and (3) the court abused its discretion during sentencing.

¶ 3 In April 2019, a majority of a panel of this court found the trial court failed to comply with section 115-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-11 (West 2014))-which permits limited courtroom closures during the testimony of minor victims of certain sex crimes-and violated defendant's right to a public trial. See People v. Schoonover, 2019 IL App (4th) 160882, ¶ 45, 158 N.E.3d 253. We reversed and remanded for a new trial on that basis without addressing the remaining issues raised by defendant on appeal. Id. ¶¶ 45, 56. The State petitioned for and was granted leave to appeal. In December 2021, the supreme court reversed, finding no clear or obvious error under section 115-11 of the Code or of defendant's right to a public trial. People v. Schoonover, 2021 IL 124832, ¶ 54. It remanded the matter back to this court to address defendant's remaining claims of error. Id. ¶ 52. We now affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In September 2015, the State charged defendant with four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of his niece M.L. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2014). Specifically, it alleged that defendant, who was over the age of 17, committed "act[s] of contact" with M.L., who was under the age of 13, for the purpose of defendant's sexual gratification, in that defendant touched M.L.'s vagina with his hand (count I), touched M.L.'s breasts with his hand (count II), placed his penis in M.L.'s mouth (count III), and placed his penis in M.L.'s hand (count IV).

¶ 6 Prior to defendant's trial, the State moved, pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2014)), to admit statements M.L. made to family members and police officers about the alleged sexual assaults, as well as a recording of an interview with M.L. at the Child Advocacy Center (CAC). The trial court allowed the motion over defendant's objection.

¶ 7 Defendant also filed various pretrial motions, including a motion in limine to bar the State from presenting evidence of statements M.L. made to her minor cousin, A.G about the alleged offenses. In response to the motion, the State asserted A.G. would not be called to testify but she would "be mentioned because she was the trigger that brought [the alleged offenses] to the family's attention[.]" It represented, however, that it did not intend to talk about "specific statements" M.L. made to A.G. The trial court ruled the State would be permitted to present evidence that a conversation occurred between M.L. and A.G., but not its content.

¶ 8 In August 2016, defendant's jury trial was conducted. Evidence showed M.L. was born in October 2002, and 13 years old at the time of trial. She testified defendant was married to her maternal aunt, Sarita Taylor, and the couple had two children. When M.L. was 10 or 11 years old, she would spend the night at defendant and Sarita's house. She would stay up late watching movies with defendant after everyone else went to bed. When M.L. was 12 years old, defendant began talking to her about "sex things." He also showed M.L. videos on his computer of people "doing sexual stuff." M.L. recalled that defendant asked her to go into the bathroom, take her clothes off, and take pictures of her "private areas" with his phone.

¶ 9 M.L. stated that on two or three occasions, defendant "did touch [her] down there." She recalled one instance when defendant put on a blue "doctor's glove" and touched her vagina, indicating that his intention "was to identify what everything was down there." On another occasion, defendant "made [M.L.] put his penis in [her] mouth." M.L. asserted defendant called her into his bedroom and, when she entered the room, defendant "was laying on the bed with his penis out." At defendant's request, M.L. put his penis in her mouth. M.L. testified defendant "had a tattoo down by his penis." She provided a description of the tattoo, including its design, coloring, and location. M.L. also identified photographs of the tattoo. The record shows defendant stipulated that the photographs shown to M.L. were of his body. The photographs were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury.

¶ 10 M.L. estimated that defendant asked her to put his penis in her mouth three or four times during the span of a year. Further, she asserted that on more than three or four occasions, defendant made her touch his penis with her hand. M.L. denied that defendant ever touched her breasts.

¶ 11 M.L. maintained that when she was alone with defendant, there were times he offered her "weed." She stated, "a couple of times," she "smoked weed" with defendant using a "pipe" in the kitchen or the garage. Defendant also gave M.L. alcohol to drink. Specifically, she stated she was given "something with whiskey" and a drink that she believed was called "Twisted Apple Ale."

¶ 12 M.L. further testified that defendant cautioned her not to tell anybody about what happened between them. Defendant told her "he could get in very big trouble." He also threatened to kill M.L., stating that telling someone "would cause [sic] [M.L.] her life." Eventually, M.L. told her cousin, A.G., what had happened with defendant. Later, she also disclosed what happened with defendant to other family members while at her grandfather's house. M.L. stated her family questioned her about what occurred with defendant but she did not recall the specific questions she was asked. Approximately a week after she disclosed information to her family, M.L. spoke with a woman at the CAC.

¶ 13 The State's evidence showed M.L.'s disclosures at her grandfather's residence occurred in September 2015. Cashonna Berger testified that M.L. was her niece and A.G. was her daughter. Around September 10, 2015, Cashonna had a conversation in her car with A.G., who was then 13, about M.L. Following that conversation, Cashonna contacted William Taylor, her father and M.L.'s grandfather, and told him "it would be a good idea to have a conversation with" M.L. and M.L.'s mother, Caitlin Taylor. On September 13, 2015, the family members met at William's residence. Initially present at the meeting were William, Caitlin, M.L., Cashonna, and A.G. Later, Sarita also arrived at the residence.

¶ 14 Each adult present at the family meeting testified and described what occurred during the meeting. Evidence showed William began the conversation with M.L. by stating there were cameras in Sarita and defendant's house. William testified he asked M.L. if there was anything she needed to talk to him about and maintained that he asked M.L. open ended questions in an effort to obtain information. He stated M.L. reported "that there had been some touching going on." She also admitted "that there was some oral sex involved." William stated that during their conversation, M.L. "broke into tears" and "got really upset."

¶ 15 Cashonna recalled that during questioning by William, M.L. admitted that defendant had touched her. She testified M.L. also described an instance when she performed oral sex on defendant while she sat in a desk chair in front of a computer and defendant stood in front of her. M.L. reported that during that incident, "something landed on her face." Caitlin testified M.L. "admitted that [defendant] touched her" and reported that defendant "put his private areas in her mouth."

¶ 16 After Sarita arrived at William's residence, she spoke with M.L. and asked," '[i]s there anything about [defendant] that is identifiable'" and" 'is there any marks.'" Sarita maintained she did not say or volunteer the word "tattoo." M.L. responded to her questions by mentioning the tattoo on defendant's pubic area, which she then described. Following that conversation, Sarita recommended that her family call the police.

¶ 17 Around 6:45 p.m. on the day of the family meeting, police officers arrived at William's residence. Officer Michael Martinez testified he responded to the residence and spoke with M.L., asking "if she could elaborate on some of the statements that she made to her grandfather." According to Martinez, M.L. disclosed that defendant had touched her approximately two times "underneath her garments" and "on her vagina." M.L. further reported that she had "been forced to perform oral sex on three occasions, and had been forced to touch [defendant's] penis once." Martinez testified that when talking about the alleged sexual acts, M.L. "was visibly shaken and trembling, [...