People v. Williams

1

2024 IL App (1st) 230584-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RASHAD H. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-23-0584

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division

September 6, 2024

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 Cook County. No. 17 CR 424 Honorable Geraldine A. D'Souza, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Mitchell and Lyle concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

MIKVA PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: Defendant's conviction for aggravated vehicular hijacking with a firearm is vacated where the trial court did not substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) before accepting defendant's waiver of counsel.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant Rashad H. Williams was convicted of aggravated vehicular hijacking with a firearm and sentenced to 30 years in prison. On appeal, Mr. Williams contends that the trial court failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) (eff. July 1 1984) before accepting his waiver of counsel. We agree vacate his conviction, and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Mr. Williams was charged by indictment in this case (case No. 17 CR 424) with one count of aggravated vehicular hijacking for allegedly taking a motor vehicle from Cerone Van on or about November 9, 2016, by force or threat of force while armed with a firearm. Mr. Williams was simultaneously charged, in a 41-count indictment in case No. 17 CR 425, with multiple offenses committed on or about November 26, 2016. The charges in case No. 17 CR 425 included the aggravated vehicular hijacking of a different victim, first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, armed habitual criminal, and aggravated discharge of a firearm.

¶ 5 Counsel was appointed to represent Mr. Williams on both cases. In October 2018, the State elected to try Mr. Williams in case No. 17 CR 425 first. On August 20, 2019, Mr. Williams asked the court if he could represent himself. The court told Mr. Williams he could represent himself but had a right to counsel, would be facing experienced attorneys, and faced imprisonment for "the rest of your life." The court ascertained that the extent of Mr. Williams's education was a "little bit of high school."

¶ 6 Specifically in reference to the potential sentences in case No. 17 CR 425, Mr. Williams was informed that he faced imprisonment for 76 years to natural life, based on a minimum 45 years for murder and 31 years for attempted murder. When the State mentioned the aggravated vehicular hijacking charge, trial counsel said, "[T]hat was on a separate date so I think that would be concurrent." The court informed Mr. Williams that aggravated vehicular hijacking is a Class X felony with a mandatory firearm enhancement. The court described the roles counsel would perform for Mr Williams and reiterated his right to represent himself, to have counsel, and to have counsel appointed if he was indigent. When Mr. Williams affirmed that he wanted to represent himself, and the court accepted his waiver and granted counsel leave to withdraw.

¶ 7 In September 2021, Mr. Williams presented a motion for reduction of bond. The court recited that Mr. Williams was "being held on two matters," with a bond of "250,000 D on the aggravated] vehicular hijacking" and "no bail on the first degree murder." Mr. Williams agreed. The court asked if he was "requesting a bond reduction to one or both matters" and he replied, "Both matters." The State's proffer for the "somewhat intertwined" cases described the alleged aggravated vehicular hijacking of Mr. Van of November 9, 2016, as well as the various alleged offenses of November 26, 2016. The court denied the motion to reduce bond.

¶ 8 The State filed a motion for joinder or to allow other-crimes evidence, including an uncharged incident on November 14, 2016, also involving Mr. Van's car. In his response, Mr. Williams expressed his understanding that he was not indicted for his alleged acts on November 9, 2016, but only for the events of November 26, 2016. The motion was argued on March 10, 2022. In denying the State's motion for joinder and granting its other-crimes motion, the court explained to Mr. Williams that he was indicted in this case for the aggravated vehicular hijacking on November 9, 2016, and would receive a copy of the indictment.

¶ 9 In April 2022, the court again reminded Mr. Williams, as it had at other court dates, of his "right to have a free attorney representing you." Mr. Williams declined the court's offer to appoint counsel and demanded trial. He waived his right to a jury trial in case No. 17 CR 425, and the court set a May 2022 trial date for that case and continued this November 9, 2016, hijacking case "by agreement."

¶ 10 On the date set for trial in case No. 17 CR 425, Mr. Williams and the State answered ready for trial, but Mr. Williams withdrew his jury waiver. The court again reminded Mr. Williams of his right to appointed counsel and Mr. Williams confirmed that he still wanted to proceed pro se. The court scheduled jury selection for May 27, 2022.

¶ 11 On May 27, 2022, the State informed the court that it was changing its election to try this November 9, 2016, hijacking case first. Mr. Williams objected, but the court told him that the State had the right to elect which case to proceed on first. On May 31, 2022, the court again reminded Mr. Williams of his "right to have an attorney *** appointed for you for free." Mr. Williams declined the court's offer to appoint counsel. A jury was selected, with trial to begin the next day, June 1, 2022.

¶ 12 When the parties reassembled in court on June 1, Mr. Williams told the court he wanted a bench trial. The court asked Mr. Williams if he understood that he and the State were answering ready for trial and he said he understood. The court accepted Mr. Williams's jury waiver and the trial commenced.

¶ 13 Mr. Van testified that, on November 9, 2016, he was at a gas station putting air in his tires when he saw Mr. Williams sitting in the driver's seat of his (Mr. Van's) customized white Chevrolet Malibu. Mr. Williams then pointed two firearms at Mr. Van and drove away in the Malibu. As Mr. Van followed his Malibu in a friend's vehicle, he called 911 to report the hijacking He gave his name not as Van, but as Tolbert, his cousin whose name was on the Malibu's title. Mr. Van testified that he did so because he had a child support warrant against him. He also testified that the child support matter had been resolved.

¶ 14 Later in November 2016, Mr. Van's friends informed him of sightings of his distinctive Malibu. Mr. V an went to the vicinity of a sighting on November 26, 2016, where he saw his Malibu and called the police, again giving his name as Tolbert. Mr. Van saw the police arrive, the Malibu crash, and Mr. Williams flee the Malibu on foot pursued by an officer. Mr. Van later learned that a shooting occurred that day related to the pursuit of the person who had taken his car, so he and Mr. Tolbert went together to the police station. On cross-examination, Mr. Van denied that he sold the Malibu to anyone and denied telling a detective that he was in the process of buying the Malibu from Mr. Tolbert.

¶ 15 Mr. Williams testified that Mr. Van sold him the Malibu on November 9, 2016. On crossexamination, Mr. Williams admitted possibly driving the Malibu on November 26, 2016, when he crashed it in Mr. Van's presence, but he was probably "high off PCP" that day and could not remember.

¶ 16 Following closing arguments, the court found Mr. Williams guilty of aggravated vehicular hijacking. The court asked Mr. Williams if he wanted counsel for sentencing, reminding him that it would appoint counsel if he could not afford an attorney. Mr. Williams replied that he would immediately present his own oral posttrial motion.

¶ 17 In that motion, Mr. Williams argued the insufficiency of the trial evidence, noting there was no security video from the carjacking scene and arguing that Mr. Van was not more credible than himself. The court denied the motion and continued the case to June 27, 2022, for sentencing.

¶ 18 On that day, the court reminded Mr. Williams of his rights to counsel for the posttrial and sentencing proceedings, to continue representing himself, and to have counsel appointed if he could not afford an attorney. The court asked if he understood that he faced a substantial mandatory prison sentence. Mr. Williams said, "I don't believe that I was informed of how much time." The court stated that he faced a prison term of 6 to 30 years, plus a 15-year firearm enhancement, for a total of 21 to 45 years' imprisonment. After noting that Mr. Williams knew the nature of the charge against him due to the trial, and now knew his possible sentence, the court asked if he still wanted to represent himself. Mr. Williams said he did, and that he had a written posttrial motion. The court granted him leave to file it.

¶ 19 In the written motion to vacate his conviction, Mr Williams argued that the verified complaint in the instant case was signed by Mr. Tolbert rather than Mr. Van, and therefore the indictment should be dismissed for having a fundamental flaw that could not be amended. The motion also alleged that Mr. Williams "was not admonished properly prior to trial and informed that the complaining victim was *** [Mr.] Tolbert or how much time [Mr. Williams] could be sentenced to for the offense alone without the joinder to" case No. 17 CR 425. Mr. Williams amended his motion in September 2022 to allege that the fundamental...