Case Law People v. Taylor

People v. Taylor

Document Cited Authorities (22) Cited in (5) Related

James E. Chadd, Ellen J. Curry, and Jennifer M. Lassy, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Sean M. Featherstun, State's Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Patrick Delfino, Patrick D. Daly, and Jessica L. Book, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

PRESIDING JUSTICE BOIE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The defendant, Joevon Taylor, appeals his conviction in Jefferson County of being an armed habitual criminal. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2016). The indictment charging the defendant with being an armed habitual criminal cited two predicate felony convictions for the charge: aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm in Jefferson County case No. 13-CF-223 and unlawful delivery of a controlled substance in Jefferson County case No. 10-CF-400.

¶ 2 The defendant appeals on two bases. The first issue is whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to stipulate to the defendant's felon status under the armed habitual criminal statute, thereby allowing the jury to consider potentially prejudicial evidence of the defendant's prior convictions. The second issue before this court challenges the defendant's sentence as an improper double enhancement where the trial court found the defendant's prior aggravated battery conviction to be a factor in aggravation at sentencing where it was used as an element in the offense of being an armed habitual criminal.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A jury convicted the defendant of being an armed habitual criminal (id. § 24-1.7(a)), unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1), and unlawful possession of a defaced firearm (id. § 24-5(b)). The trial court merged the unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and the unlawful possession of a defaced firearm charges into the single count of being an armed habitual criminal for sentencing purposes and imposed a prison term of 10 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

¶ 5 The defendant's jury trial commenced on March 21, 2017. Sergeant Brian Huff (Sgt. Huff) testified that he was employed with the Mt. Vernon Police Department and on patrol on November 26, 2016, at approximately 1:50 a.m. Sgt. Huff testified that he responded to a request at Geo's, a local bar, where the bartenders requested law enforcement's aid in clearing the bar out. When leaving from the call, Sgt. Huff testified that he saw a silver GMC sport utility vehicle (SUV) at the intersection of 24th Street and Casey Avenue that failed to stop at a stop sign. Sgt. Huff pulled out and activated his lights to conduct a traffic stop on the vehicle. Initially, the SUV did not stop, and when it did, the driver fled from the vehicle on foot. Sgt. Huff testified that he pursued the driver, later identified as the defendant. According to Sgt. Huff, the defendant fell in between two houses located at 423 and 425 South 17th Street.

¶ 6 Sgt. Huff testified that the defendant ran through an alley and then slipped and fell before turning back toward the south behind 1604 Cherry Street. Sgt. Huff testified that the defendant got back up and started running in the backyard of 1604 Cherry Street, and Sgt. Huff "could see things flying out of his hands like he was taking things out of his pockets." Sgt. Huff testified that the defendant came to the front of 1604 Cherry Street and then headed back east to 1506 Cherry Street. At this point, the defendant fell down again, and before he could get up, Sgt. Huff deployed his Taser on the defendant and took him into custody at 1506 Cherry Street.

¶ 7 Sgt. Huff testified that he had radioed for help, and Corporal Travis Chapman (Cpl. Chapman), Officer Adam Hurst, Officer Greenwood, and Officer Carlton1 arrived to provide backup. Cpl. Chapman arrived first and helped Sgt. Huff remove the Taser probes from the defendant, and Officer Greenwood transported the defendant from the scene. Then, Sgt. Huff and Cpl. Chapman backtracked the path of the foot pursuit to recover evidence. Sgt. Huff testified that he saw the defendant throw a black bag and another item later determined to be suspected cannabis that he had been carrying, but Sgt. Huff admitted that he never saw the defendant with a handgun. Sgt. Huff found cannabis and a black bag that smelled of cannabis in the backyard of 1604 Cherry Street and found a cell phone and a $10 bill along the same path as the foot pursuit. Sgt. Huff testified that Cpl. Chapman found a handgun between 423 and 425 South 17th Street in the area where the defendant fell, within 15 feet of the cell phone and $10 bill.

¶ 8 The cell phone was locked, and officers were never able to determine to whom it belonged. Sgt. Huff testified that Cpl. Chapman put the handgun in a bag and, then, Sgt. Huff carried the bag to his squad car. Sgt. Huff testified that he touched the handgun within a minute to see how it was orientated in the bag so that he would know which direction it was pointing for safety purposes. Sgt. Huff testified it was a cold night, below or close to freezing, and that the handgun was warm to the touch. Sgt. Huff identified People's exhibit No. 6 as a photograph of the handgun where it was found. The photograph depicts a black handgun on the ground surrounded by brown leaves and has some leaves and grass on top of the handgun. There was no rust on the handgun, which Sgt. Huff believed was in relatively good shape, and the serial number had been removed.

¶ 9 Sgt. Huff testified that his squad car was equipped with a video camera, which captured the traffic stop but not the foot pursuit. On cross-examination, Sgt. Huff admitted that he did not know who occupied the houses at 423 and 425 South 17th Street, where the handgun was recovered. The yellow house appeared vacant at the time of the traffic stop and still appeared vacant the weekend before trial, when Sgt. Huff photographed the area. Sgt. Huff described the defendant as not wearing a coat or gloves at the time of the incident.

¶ 10 Forensic scientist Amy Hart testified that she was unable to find any fingerprints on the handgun, magazine, or 10 live cartridges recovered in this case. Hart was not asked to analyze any other items for prints. Forensic scientist Jay Winters testified that he performed a DNA analysis on the gun in this case. On direct examination, Winters claimed that there was a mixture of DNA from two individuals on the gun, and he claimed that the defendant "could not be excluded as a potential contributor to that mixture." However, on cross-examination, Winters admitted that no one could be excluded as having contributed the DNA and that "the likelihood of that profile being anyone else—basically it could be anyone else." Officer Hurst testified that he conducted an inventory search of the SUV on November 26, 2016, and recovered a bottle of alcohol as well as a birth certificate in the defendant's name.

¶ 11 Cpl. Chapman testified that he was on duty on November 26, 2016. At around 1:50 a.m., he heard Sgt. Huff radio that he was in a foot chase around 425 South 17th Street and Cherry Street. Cpl. Chapman testified that he and Sgt. Huff walked the path of the foot chase with their flashlights searching for discarded evidence. They found a small plastic bag of cannabis and a black duffle bag behind 1604 Cherry Street where Sgt. Huff had seen the defendant throw some items. As Cpl. Chapman approached 1604 Cherry Street, he smelled raw cannabis. In between 423 and 425 South 17th Street, Sgt. Huff found money and a cell phone while Cpl. Chapman found the handgun. Cpl. Chapman described the handgun as a black, semiautomatic, Hi-Point 9-millimeter that was lying in the grass and leaves between the two houses, but closer to 423 South 17th Street. Cpl. Chapman described the serial numbers on the firearm as defaced, as though someone tried to scratch off the serial numbers. Cpl. Chapman testified that he put on a latex glove, picked up the handgun, and did not recall the temperature or feel of the handgun as warm or cold. On cross-examination, Cpl. Chapman explained that the distance between 1604 Cherry Street and 423 and 425 South 17th Street is about "half a block." Cpl. Chapman testified that the gun, phone, and money were found in between 423 and 425 South 17th Street and that the gun was about 15 feet away from the phone and money.

¶ 12 Prior to the jury trial, at the final pretrial hearing held on March 17, 2017, the court inquired as to how the parties wanted the charges read to the jury. The following discussion occurred:

"MR. QUINN [(DEFENSE COUNSEL)]: We want to hear the Indictment as it's written.
THE COURT: All right. And so then as to—so we make sure of this, as to the armed habitual criminal charge, would I read then that he has been convicted of aggravated battery, great bodily harm in Jefferson County case number and then the other one?
MR. RICE [(ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY)]: Yes, sir. I believe it's an element of the offense.
THE COURT: Yes. Is that your understanding Mr. Quinn?
MR. QUINN: That is—that is my understanding, as well, [Y]our Honor."

¶ 13 During the defendant's jury trial, the trial court read the charges to the jury, in relevant part, as follows:

"In this particular case the Defendant, Joevon C. Taylor, is charged with the following offenses and I will read the charges to you now. He's charged in Count I of the Bill of Indictment charges as follows: That on November 26, 2016, in Jefferson County, Illinois, Joevon C. Taylor committed the offense of armed habitual criminal in that said Defendant knowingly possessed a firearm, after having been convicted of aggravated battery, great bodily harm, in Jefferson County case No. 13-CF-223, an[d] unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, in Jefferson County No.
...
1 cases
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2022
People v. Tolliver
"...the Fifth District recently applied the rationale of those decisions in an armed habitual criminal case. People v. Taylor , 2022 IL App (5th) 180192, 456 Ill.Dec. 624, 193 N.E.3d 864. There, the defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, where counsel did not offer to stipulate to..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2022
People v. Tolliver
"...the Fifth District recently applied the rationale of those decisions in an armed habitual criminal case. People v. Taylor , 2022 IL App (5th) 180192, 456 Ill.Dec. 624, 193 N.E.3d 864. There, the defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, where counsel did not offer to stipulate to..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex