People v. Searles

2022 IL App (1st) 210043

216 N.E.3d 387

465 Ill.Dec. 1136

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

v.John SEARLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-21-0043

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed September 30, 2022

Rehearing denied October 28, 2022

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Talon K. Nouri, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, David H. Iskowich, and Su Wang, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant John Searles was convicted after a jury trial of the first degree murder and attempted armed robbery of Anthony Leyva. Defendant, who was 20 years old at the time of the offense, was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 60 years for the first degree murder and 15 years for the attempted armed robbery, for a total of 75 years. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal and affirmed the summary dismissal of his initial pro se postconviction petition. He appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for leave to file his first successive postconviction petition.

¶ 2 Defendant argues that his pro se petition made a prima facie showing that his 75-year sentence, without the possibility of either good-time credit or parole, for an offense he committed in 2000 when he was 20 years old violates the Illinois Constitution's proportionate penalties clause ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11 ) as applied to him, in light of his age, his history of mental health issues, and his exposure to physical abuse and drug use at an early age.

¶ 3 For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for second-stage proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The instant appeal concerns the proportionality of defendant's sentence. Prior to this offense, the 20-year old defendant had only one adult conviction, for the relatively minor offense of defacement to property, and no juvenile record. In pronouncing a lengthy sentence, the trial court mentioned in particular, "the nature of the offense," which the court found "to be particularly aggravating," in that "it was premeditated" and "done pursuant to a plan to rob the victim" and defendant "armed himself with a particularly gruesome and deadly weapon." Although the appellate record does not contain a photo of the knife, it was described at trial as having a curved blade with spikes on the handle and measuring 12 inches in overall length. The trial court relied heavily on the age of the victim, who was 72 years old, as a particularly aggravating factor; but it did not discuss defendant's young age or any attributes or characteristics relating to under 21-year-olds.

¶ 6 Since the nature of the offense was the primary reason given for the long sentence, we describe the evidence at trial in detail below. In short, the evidence established that the 72-year old victim was married and was also dating Evelyn Rivera, who he had met on a phone chat line. Rivera's best friend was 19-year old Vanessa Padin, and Rivera's boyfriend was 20-year old defendant. The three friends talked about scaring Leyva with a knife, so that they could grab a money pouch that Leyva always carried with him. They talked of using the money to throw a "hotel" party for their friends. Rivera was the one who spoke to Leyva on the phone and arranged for his visit to Rivera's home, in the West Lawn neighborhood of Chicago. Rivera also retrieved a knife from her room and handed it to defendant. When the three friends were in Leyva's car, defendant, who was sitting behind the driver, pulled out the knife. The two girls immediately jumped out of the car and ran, leaving defendant as the only witness as to what happened next in the car. Defendant testified that things went awry when the car suddenly jerked back and the knife that defendant was holding cut Leyva's neck. After the cut to Leyva's neck, the car crashed into a gas station and defendant escaped out of the door where Padin had previously sat. Padin testified that stabbing was not part of their plan.

¶ 7 A. Trial

¶ 8 1. Marian Leyva

¶ 9 Marian Leyva, the wife of the victim, testified that they had been married for 40 years. On June 24, 2000, the day of the offense, she went to babysit for her cousins’ children, and her husband said he was going to have dinner with some friends but would join her later. While babysitting, she received a call from her daughter that her husband had been taken to the hospital, due to what she initially believed was a car accident. After calling the hospital, she learned from a hospital chaplain that her husband had died.

¶ 10 2. Peter Karlovics

¶ 11 Peter Karlovics testified that he was working a shift as an assistant state's attorney (ASA) in the felony review unit when he received an assignment at 3 a.m. on June 25, 2000, to go to Area One Police Headquarters on the south side of Chicago. There, he met with Detective Halloran, who informed him that three suspects were in custody: Evelyn Rivera, Vanessa Padin, and defendant. Karlovics spoke first with Rivera and then with defendant.

¶ 12 Karlovics testified that he read defendant his Miranda rights at 4:15 a.m. in the presence of Detective Halloran. See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). During the ensuing interview, defendant stated that he had attempted to rob and "car-jack" Leyva with the assistance of Rivera and Padin. During the attempt, defendant stabbed the victim twice and then jumped out of the car and ran away. After making this statement, defendant agreed to record it on videotape. Karlovics next spoke with Padin for an hour. At 6:30 a.m., Karlovics called for the delivery of video equipment and a videographer, who arrived more than an hour later. All three suspects had agreed to provide videotaped statements. Karlovics's videotaped interview of defendant began at 8:47 a.m. on June 25, 2000, and the videotape was admitted into evidence and played for the jury.

¶ 13 Neither the transcript nor the tape appears in the appellate record, although both were admitted into evidence and impounded. In the appellate court order denying defendant's direct appeal, this court provided the following brief description of the taped statement:

"In defendant's videotaped statement of June 25, 2000, he acknowledged that he told assistant State's Attorney Peter Karlovics that he had stabbed Leyva while trying to rob him inside his car. He further said that on the way to the CTA he told Leyva to pull the car over, Leyva cooperated, defendant pulled the knife out and ‘held it up and told him to get out.’ Leyva refused, put the car in motion, and the two struggled over the knife. Defendant said that he ‘was just trying to cut him in the neck and get him to *** let go of the knife and let [him]¹ go already.’ " People v. Searles , No. 1-02-2598, slip order at 5, 310 Ill.Dec. 552, 866 N.E.2d 713 (2004) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 ).

¶ 14 During cross-examination, Karlovics provided the following details from the taped interview. Defendant stated that he used to date Rivera but that Rivera had been dating Leyva for a few months. Rivera and Leyva generally went out once or twice a week. Rivera was supposed to leave for Puerto Rico on June 25. Rivera told defendant that Leyva carried money in a black pouch, and she talked about trying to rob Leyva with a knife that she had. Rivera said that Leyva's car doors might be unlocked. After observing Leyva parked in front of Rivera's house, defendant tried the car doors and discovered the doors were not unlocked. In response, Leyva rolled down his window and defendant told him that Rivera would be right down. Defendant then went back upstairs to Rivera.

¶ 15 Vanessa Padin, age 19 at the time of the offense, testified that she lived with her boyfriend and baby daughter in the basement of the same house where Rivera occupied the second floor. Padin's boyfriend's father lived on the first floor, in between them. Rivera lived with Rivera's mother and sister, and Padin and Rivera had been friends for two years. Padin first met defendant when Rivera "hooked up with him on a date service." On June 24, 2000, Leyva was Rivera's boyfriend, and defendant was an ex-boyfriend of Rivera's. On June 24, at around noon, defendant came to Rivera's home. In addition to Padin and Rivera, Rivera's younger sister and brothers were at Rivera's home. Rivera was planning on going to Puerto Rico on Sunday, June 25, 2000, and Rivera, Padin, and defendant were planning on throwing Rivera a party. Defendant had a cousin who was going "to throw a hotel party." However, Rivera, Padin, and defendant had no money for a party. Rivera said that she was seeing a guy who had money and she wanted to rob him. The plan was that, when Leyva came to Rivera's house, defendant would go into Leyva's car, scare him "with the knife," and run off with the car. Rivera said that Leyva carried money with him in a purse by his side. Rivera provided defendant with a knife that had spikes, and Rivera received a call from Leyva. Defendant went downstairs 10 minutes before Leyva arrived. Watching from an upstairs window, Padin saw that, after Leyva pulled up in front of the house in a four-door car, defendant tried to open the passenger door but it did not open. Defendant then walked to the driver's side and came back upstairs. Defendant stated, "that plan didn't work."

¶ 16 Padin testified that they had discussed other plans before defendant tried to open Leyva's door. Rivera had suggested that Padin could go in the car with Rivera, that Rivera could make out with Leyva in the front seat, and that Rivera could throw Leyva's purse in the back seat. However, Rivera stated the make-out plan would not work because Leyva would not kiss Rivera in front of Padin. That is when Rivera said she would just throw the purse...