People v. Wiley

224 N.E.3d 895

2022 IL App (4th) 210283

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

v.Casey T. WILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-21-0283

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed December 8, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County, No. 20CF541, Honorable Jason M. Bohm, Judge Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and Edward J. Wittrig, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Scott Rueter, State’s Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James C. Majors, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 In April 2020, the State charged defendant, Casey T. Wiley, with two counts of possession of weapons by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)). Prior to trial, defendant’s counsel filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude all evidence of defendant’s prior criminal history. In that motion, defense counsel acknowledged defendant’s status as a felon was an element of the offense the State must prove, but counsel wrote defendant would stipulate he had a requisite felony conviction.

¶ 2 When the case was called for jury trial in March 2021, defense counsel informed the trial court defendant did not agree with counsel’s motion in limine regarding the proposed stipulation. Counsel informed the court defendant "would like the jury to be made aware of the charge in his previous conviction, as he understands that is an element that the State must prove." Counsel then moved to withdraw the motion in limine, and the trial court granted that request,

¶ 3 After evidence was presented at trial and the parties rested, defense counsel did not request a jury instruction limiting the jurors’ consideration of defendant’s prior conviction. The jury found defendant guilty of both counts, and the trial court later sentenced him to concurrent terms of 14 years in prison on each count.

¶ 4 Defendant appeals, arguing he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel (1) deferred to defendant "on trial-strategy matters" by withdrawing the motion to stipulate to his felon status when the underlying prior conviction was an aggravated weapons offense and (2) failed to request a jury instruction limiting the jurors’ consideration of the prior conviction. Defendant further argues this court should vacate one of defendant’s two convictions under the one-act, one-crime doctrine because both convictions were based on the same physical act of possessing firearm ammunition. Because, we agree only with defendant’s second contention, we affirm his conviction and sentence regarding count I but vacate his conviction regarding count II.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 A. Charges Against Defendant

¶ 7 In April 2020, the State charged defendant with two counts of possession of weapons by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)). Count I alleged that, on April 27, 2020, he knowingly possessed on or about his person "40 Armscor brand and 50 Federal brand 9mm firearm ammunition" after having been convicted of a felony under Illinois law—namely, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in Macon County case No., 2018-CF-942. Count II alleged defendant committed the same offense, only this time the State alleged (1) the offense occurred on April 28, 2020, and (2) defendant knowingly possessed on or about his person "40 Armscor brand firearm 9mm ammunition."

¶ 8 B. Defendant’s Motion In Limine

¶ 9 In March 2021, defense counsel filed a motion in limine seeking to "bar the prosecution from admitting evidence or eliciting testimony about the defendant’s criminal history." In support thereof, defense counsel alleged, in part, the following:

"1. That the Defendant is charged in two counts with Unlawful Possession of Ammunition by a Felon, which the prosecution alleges occurred on April 27th and 28th of 2020.

2. That the defendant has previous[ly] been convicted of a felony offense, and has other criminal matters pending currently.

3. That the prosecution should be barred from admitting evidence or eliciting testimony about the nature of defendant’s criminal history because it is not relevant to the charges at hand. Any mention of the nature of the charges or the facts of any previous offenses would serve merely to prejudice the jury as mere propensity evidence.

4. That the defendant acknowledges that his status as a felon is an element of the offense the state must prove. Accordingly, the defendant would stipulate that he has a requisite felony conviction for the state to prove the element of the charge. However, the defendant asserts that any mention of the nature of the past offenses, or facts related thereto, would be substantially more prejudicial than probative, and should be barred."

¶ 10 C. Defense Counsel’s Withdrawal of the Motion In Limine

¶ 11 Defense counsel initially filed two pretrial motions in limine. Just before defendant’s March 2021 jury trial, defense counsel made a motion to withdraw the first motion in limine, described above, explaining as follows:

"MR. BROWN [(DEFENSE COUNSEL)]: *** Defendant’s Motion in Limine One I’ve discussed it with my client. It would be substantially based [on] People versus Walker which permits in the case of an Unlawful Possession of a Weapon by a Felon case, the defense to stipulate that there is a requisite felony conviction without the nature or the charges of that conviction being read to the jury.

I believe it was in [defendant’]s best interest to file tins motion and I did. However, in speaking with him, since I have filed it, he has indicated that he would not like this motion on file. Um—that he would like the jury to be made aware of the charge in his previous conviction, as he understands that is an element that the State must prove. And so, at his request, I am withdrawing Defendant’s Motion in Limine One.

THE COURT: Okay. At defendant’s request the Motion in Limine Number One will be withdrawn."

¶ 12 D. Evidence at Defendant’s Trial

¶ 13 The evidence at defendant’s jury trial was simple and straightforward. The State called one civilian witness and some law enforcement officers and also presented a certified copy of defendant’s prior conviction, which showed that "in Macon County case No. 2018-CF-942, defendant on January 24, 2020, was convicted of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of weapon, a felony, according to the laws of the State of Illinois." The parties also stipulated that defendant’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card was revoked on April 27 and April 28, 2020, due to a prior felony conviction.

¶ 14 Darbi Hughes testified she was working at Decatur Jewelry and Pawn on April 27, 2020. Part of her duties consisted of selling ammunition. Around 4 p.m. that afternoon, she waited on a man outside because the store was not letting customers inside due to COVID. Hughes identified defendant in open court as the man about whom she was testifying. Defendant said he wanted to purchase ammunition. Hughes asked for his FOID card and what kind of ammunition he wanted.

¶ 15 After defendant told Hughes what he wanted, she went into the store to get the ammunition. She rang up the sale and collected money from defendant for the ammunition. Hughes gave defendant back his FOID card, the ammunition, and change from the sale.

¶ 16 After defendant left the store, Hughes and other employees determined "there was a big possibility that his FOID card had been revoked." Although defendant had already left the store, they called the police.

¶ 17 Hughes identified a sales receipt from the store regarding the ammunition defendant purchased, and it was admitted into evidence. The receipt showed the salesperson was Hughes and the purchaser was listed as "Casey T. Wiley." The receipt showed he purchased 50 rounds of Federal brand 9-millimeter ammunition and 40 rounds of Armscor brand 9-millimeter ammunition.

¶ 18 Hughes also scanned the FOID card defendant gave her, which was a practice the staff always did when anyone came to the store to purchase any kind of firearm or ammunition. She identified People’s exhibit number 2 as being the scanned copy of the FOID card defendant gave her. That exhibit bore the name and picture of Casey T. Wiley as the cardholder and was also admitted into evidence.

¶ 19 On cross-examination, Hughes acknowledged it was unlawful to sell ammunition to someone without a valid FOID card and that even though she had concerns about defendant, she nonetheless completed the sale. Hughes later stated on cross-examination she conducted only the initial outside-the-building process and did not ring up the sale.

¶ 20 Hughes also acknowledged the scanned copy of defendant’s, FOID card had been taken when he was previously in the store, and the scanned copy apparently was kept on file. Hughes also testified she did not create defendant’s receipt or use the computer to produce the receipt.

¶ 21 Corey Wiley, defendant’s twin brother, testified he assisted defendant in obtaining apartment 4 at 3255 Beth Boulevard in Decatur, Illinois, in the early part of 2020. Defendant lived in that apartment in late April 2020, and Corey did not. Corey testified defendant lived there alone.

¶ 22 Damian Lile testified he was employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections as a parole officer in April 2020 and was assigned as the parole officer for defendant. In that role, Lile conducted home visits at defendant’s apartment on Beth Boulevard in the spring of 2020. To Lile’s knowledge, defendant was the only one who lived in that apartment.

¶ 23 Decatur police detective Chad Ramey testified he was assigned to investigate the purchase of firearm ammunition by defendant on April 27, 2020. Ramey knew defendant was on parole and did not possess a valid FOID card because of his status as a felon.

¶ 24 Ramey contacted Lile to determine defendant’s current residence, which was the Beth...