People v. Smith

2019 IL 123901

155 N.E.3d 396

440 Ill.Dec. 626

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Stevie SMITH, Appellee.

The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Jerry Brown, Appellee.

Docket Nos. 123901

123902

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed September 19, 2019.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Erin M. O'Connell, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Patricia Mysza, Deputy Defender, and Christopher Kopacz, Assistant Appellate Defender, the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellee Jerry Brown.

Christopher Cronson and Brett Cronson, of Cronson & Cronson, Ltd., of Waukegan, for other appellee.

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

¶ 1 Following simultaneous but severed bench trials in the circuit court of Cook County, defendants Stevie Smith and Jerry Brown were convicted of robbery and aggravated battery of a senior citizen in which defendants caused great bodily harm. In separate appeals, the appellate court vacated defendants' convictions for aggravated battery of a senior citizen under one-act, one-crime principles. People v. Brown , 2018 IL App (1st) 151311-B, 424 Ill.Dec. 200, 107 N.E.3d 919 ; People v. Smith , 2018 IL App (1st) 151312-B, 424 Ill.Dec. 924, 110 N.E.3d 274. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgments of the appellate court.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendants were charged by indictment with first degree felony murder predicated on robbery ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2008)), aggravated battery of a senior citizen (id. § 12-4.6(a)), robbery (id. § 18-1(a)), and several counts of aggravated battery (id. § 12-4(a), (b)(8), (b)(10)).

¶ 4 The evidence at trial established that on the morning of November 16, 2009, William Burtner, a 65-year-old veteran, was attacked while attempting to deposit money at the A.J. Smith bank in Midlothian, Illinois. Burtner, in his role as the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post, was responsible for making the deposits on behalf of the VFW. That morning, he was walking toward the bank entrance, carrying multiple deposit bags with $2100 in cash and a cigar box containing cash and checks from a fundraiser held the previous night.

¶ 5 A bank teller saw Burtner, a regular customer, walking toward the entrance with the deposit bags in hand. She saw a man in a hooded sweatshirt walk quickly behind him. After briefly losing sight of both men as they passed behind a wall, she saw the hooded man run in the opposite direction, carrying something in his hands. The man, later identified as defendant Smith, got into the passenger seat of a black car driven by codefendant Brown, and the car sped off.

¶ 6 A bank employee found Burtner lying on the ground by the front entrance, taking labored breaths, and grabbing his left side. Burtner told her that he had been punched in the side and asked her to retrieve the cigar box, which was on the ground. Burtner later told a paramedic that he fell after being hit from behind. At the hospital, Burtner complained of left side pain, difficulty breathing, and two bruised knees. X-rays taken at that time did not reveal broken ribs.

¶ 7 Meanwhile, after a high-speed police chase, the black car crashed and came to a stop. Defendants ran in opposite directions. Police found defendant Brown minutes later hiding underneath a car. During a custodial search, police recovered $1200 in cash from defendant Brown's pocket; they also recovered the A.J. Smith bank deposit bags and money from inside the car. DNA evidence from blood samples taken from the car was linked to defendant Smith.

¶ 8 Three days after the incident, Burtner died. Following an autopsy, the medical examiner's opinion was that the cause of death was a heart attack and that the assault was a significant contributing factor because it stressed Burtner's already weakened cardiovascular system. Burtner had heart disease, had two prior heart attacks, and suffered from lung cancer. The internal examination revealed three broken ribs on Burtner's left side and hemorrhaging on the left chest wall consistent with being punched. It was the medical examiner's opinion that the injuries were no more than four days old.

¶ 9 The trial court acquitted defendants on the felony murder charge but convicted them of robbery and aggravated battery of a senior citizen in which they caused great bodily harm, after merging the other aggravated battery counts. The court also found that consecutive sentences were warranted by the nature of the crimes and defendants' lengthy criminal histories. Smith was sentenced to 12 years for robbery and 6 years for aggravated battery of a senior citizen. Brown was sentenced to 15 years for robbery and 7 years for aggravated battery of a senior citizen.

¶ 10 On appeal, defendants argued for the first time that their convictions for aggravated battery of a senior citizen violated the one-act, one-crime rule because they were predicated on the same conduct as the robbery conviction. In each case, under a plain-error analysis, the appellate court agreed, finding that the evidence demonstrated that defendants committed one single physical act—a punch to Burtner's left side. The court found that the single punch became "the basis for the aggravated battery conviction, and as the element of force for the robbery conviction." People v. Brown , 2017 IL App (1st) 151311-U, ¶¶ 22, 25, 2017 WL 4764914, vacated by No. 123080, 420 Ill.Dec. 36, 95 N.E.3d 499 (Ill. Mar. 21, 2018) (supervisory order); People v. Smith , 2017 IL App (1st) 151312, ¶¶ 22, 25, 418 Ill.Dec. 177, 89 N.E.3d 1011, vacated by No. 123082, 420 Ill.Dec. 7, 95 N.E.3d 470 (Ill. Mar. 21, 2018) (supervisory order). Accordingly, the court vacated defendants' convictions for aggravated battery of a senior citizen. Brown , 2017 IL App (1st) 151311-U, ¶ 25 ; Smith , 2017 IL App (1st) 151312, ¶ 27, 418 Ill.Dec. 177, 89 N.E.3d 1011.

¶ 11 Subsequently, this court issued supervisory orders in each case directing the appellate court to reconsider its decision in light of People v. Coats , 2018 IL 121926, 423 Ill.Dec. 13, 104 N.E.3d 1102. On remand, the appellate court found Coats distinguishable and reiterated its conclusions that there was no evidence of a separate physical act to support both convictions. Brown , 2018 IL App (1st) 151311-B, ¶¶ 26-28, 424 Ill.Dec. 200, 107 N.E.3d 919 ; Smith , 2018 IL App (1st) 151312-B, ¶¶ 26-28, 424 Ill.Dec. 924, 110 N.E.3d 274. We allowed the State's petitions for leave to appeal ( Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2018)) and consolidated the cases for review.

¶ 12 ANALYSIS

¶ 13 The sole issue in this appeal involves the application of the one-act, one-crime rule, which was established by this court in People v. King , 66 Ill. 2d 551, 6 Ill.Dec. 891, 363 N.E.2d 838 (1977), and reaffirmed in People v. Rodriguez , 169 Ill. 2d 183, 214 Ill.Dec. 451, 661 N.E.2d 305 (1996). The one-act, one-crime rule prohibits convictions for multiple offenses that are based on precisely the same physical act. Coats , 2018 IL 121926, ¶ 11, 423 Ill.Dec. 13, 104 N.E.3d 1102 (citing King , 66 Ill. 2d at 566, 6 Ill.Dec. 891, 363 N.E.2d 838 ).

¶ 14 Initially, we note that both defendants forfeited their claims by failing to raise this issue in the trial court. See People v. Enoch , 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124 (1988). As the State recognizes, however, plain errors affecting substantial rights may be reviewed on appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967). An alleged one-act, one-crime violation is reviewable under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine because it affects the integrity of the judicial process. Coats , 2018 IL 121926, ¶ 10, 423 Ill.Dec. 13, 104 N.E.3d 1102. Although the one-act, one-crime rule is not of constitutional dimension, its purpose is to prevent the prejudicial effect that could result in those instances where more than one offense is carved from the same physical act. See People v. Artis , 232 Ill. 2d 156, 164-68, 327 Ill.Dec. 556, 902 N.E.2d 677 (2009). Under plain-error review, we begin by determining whether any error occurred. People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187, 294 Ill.Dec. 55, 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005).

¶ 15 In considering whether a violation of the rule has occurred, we must first determine whether a defendant's conduct consisted of a single physical act or separate acts. Coats , 2018 IL 121926, ¶ 12, 423 Ill.Dec. 13, 104 N.E.3d 1102. Multiple convictions are improper if they are based on precisely the same physical act. If, however, the defendant's conduct is based on more than one physical act, the court then proceeds to the second step, determining whether any of the offenses are lesser-included offenses. Id. If not, then multiple convictions are proper. Id. Whether a violation of the rule has occurred is a question of law that is reviewed de novo . Id.

¶ 16 Defendants' Conduct

¶ 17 In this case, the appellate court concluded that the robbery offense and the aggravated battery of a senior citizen offense were based on the same physical act: a single punch to Burtner's left side. The court reasoned that the evidence at trial showed a "single punch was used as the basis for the aggravated battery conviction and as the element of force for the robbery conviction." Smith , 2018 IL App (1st) 151312-B, ¶ 22, 424 Ill.Dec. 924, 110 N.E.3d 274 ; Brown , 2018 IL App (1st) 151311-B, ¶ 22, 424 Ill.Dec. 200, 107 N.E.3d 919. Focusing on the single punch, the appellate court held that convictions for the two offenses violated one-act, one-crime principles. Smith , 2018 IL App (1st) 151312-B, ¶ 25, 424 Ill.Dec. 924, 110 N.E.3d 274 ; Brown , 2018 IL App (1st) 151311-B, ¶ 25, 424 Ill.Dec. 200, 107 N.E.3d 919.

¶ 18 The State argues that this interpretation negates the taking of the property as a separate act of wrongful conduct that supported the...