People v. Winters

235 N.E.3d 653

2022 IL App (1st) 200859

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

v.Anthony WINTERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-20-0859

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, THIRD DIVISION.

Filed November 10, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 17 CR 16720(01), Honorable James Michael Obbish, Judge Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, Joseph Michael Benak, and Michael C. Bennett, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Brian K. Hodes, and Daniel Plwowarczyk, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel, and Henry L, Adams, law student), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 Defendant Anthony Winters was indicted on two counts of criminal sexual assault based on allegations that he twice inserted his finger into N.P.’s vagina during a clinical massage. Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed criminal sexual assault. Defendant also contends that the version of section 5-4.5-100 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code of Corrections) under which he was sentenced (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-100 (West 2020)) violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV) and Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art, I, § 2). For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State alleged that defendant, a licensed massage therapist, twice inserted his finger into N.P.’s vagina during a clinical massage and knew that she was unable to give knowing consent. Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(2) (West 2016)) and was released on bond. As a condition of the bond, defendant was placed on electronic home monitoring.

¶ 4 During the bench trial, N.P. testified that she, her four sisters, and her cousin had planned a "girls’ weekend" and had booked hotel rooms in Chicago. On February 10, 2017, prior to meeting her relatives, she scheduled a massage at defendant’s business, Therapy for Everybody. After checking in, N.P. completed a form indicating that she was experiencing spasms, cramps, and hip and back pain and that she sought treatment for the middle and lower parts of her back.

¶ 5 According to N.P., defendant introduced himself and led her to a massage room. He instructed her to "undress to [her] comfort." Defendant left the room, and N.P. undressed, leaving on her bra and underwear. N.P. testified that she was uncomfortable since defendant is male but "went forward" with the massage. After she lay on the massage table and covered herself with a sheet, defendant returned to the room and started massaging her. N.P. testified that she was lying on her back, and while defendant was massaging her left leg, she felt his finger inside her vagina. She testified that "the first time that it happened, I was trying to convince myself that it didn’t happen."

¶ 6 N.P. testified that, as the massage continued, defendant inserted his finger inside of her vagina a second time. N.P. "reacted" and "jumped in place." According to N.P., after she reacted, defendant asked her whether she "was okay with it," and she told him that she was not. N.P. testified that defendant said, "I’m sorry, I don’t usually do this, but I was really attracted to you." The massage ended approximately five minutes later. N.P. dressed and left the room.

¶ 7 N.P. testified that she was eager to leave and "process what just happened." When she was outside, she called her sister, N.E., who asked her how the massage went. N.P. started crying and said, "he took it too far." N.P. met her sisters and cousin at the hotel but did not go out with them. She testified that she instead stayed at the hotel, cried, and took a bath. The next morning, she again stayed at the hotel while her sisters went out for breakfast. After her sisters returned, N.P. told two of her sisters, including N.E., that the massage therapist twice inserted his finger into her vagina during her massage.

¶ 8 N.P. testified that N.E. provided her the phone number for the nonprofit organization Rape Victim Advocates, which N.P. called the following week; N.P. spoke with an advocate. During the call, N.P. described what happened to her; the advocate informed her that she had been sexually assaulted. N.P. then went to a police station, where she was advised to have a rape kit administered. At West Suburban Medical Center, N.P. met with Meredith Watkins, a registered nurse, and informed Watkins that she wanted a rape kit administered. N.P. testified that she cried throughout the examination. After the examination, a police officer visited her at the hospital, and she reported the incident.

¶ 9 N.P. testified that in October 2017, she met with a police detective, who had printed a photograph of the employees at Therapy for Everybody. N.P. identified defendant as the massage therapist who sexually assaulted her.

¶ 10 Meredith Watkins, an expert in sexual assault nurse examination and emergency nursing, testified that she administered an evidence collection kit and conducted a sexual assault nursing examination on N.P. Watkins testified that N.P. described that she was sexually assaulted, and Watkins recorded her description. In addition, Watkins testified that during the examination, she observed a two-millimeter tear on N.P.’s posterior fourchette (the bottom of the inner folds of the vulva). Watkins testified that the sexual assault that N.P. described could have caused the tear.

¶ 11 On cross-examination, Watkins testified that the tear was acute, or unhealed, but that she did not know when the tear occurred. Watkins further testified that N.P. indicated she had recently used a genital wipe or wash, which could have caused the tear.

¶ 12 The parties stipulated that the evidence collection kit failed to detect male-specific DNA.

¶ 13 After the State rested, defendant moved for a directed finding; the motion was denied. Defendant also moved for a mistrial, which was denied.

¶ 14 Defendant testified that he co-owned Therapy for Everybody, where he worked as a clinical massage therapist and operations manager. On February 10, 2017, defendant testified that N.P. completed a form indicating that she wanted her middle and lower back treated. When he and N.P. were in the massage room, he asked whether she had any questions and instructed her to undress to her comfort level. Defendant left the room while she undressed. When he returned, N.P. was lying on the table and under covers, and he began the session by massaging her legs. According to defendant, N.P. did not express discomfort at any time during the massage. Defendant denied inserting his finger into N.P.’s vagina.

¶ 15 Desirae Melecio testified that she regularly worked with defendant at Therapy for Everybody for approximately a year and had developed a sense of his character and morals. She testified that defendant was hardworking, punctual, professional, friendly, and intelligent and his morals were sound.

¶ 16 Following closing arguments, the trial court found defendant guilty of one count of criminal sexual assault. Defendant moved to vacate the finding of guilt or, alternatively, to grant defendant a new trial. The trial court denied the motion.

¶ 17 At sentencing, after the trial court heard arguments in aggravation and mitigation, defense counsel requested a credit of 968 days for the time defendant was under electronic monitoring during the pretrial proceedings. In response, the State noted that, under sections 5-4.5-100(d) of the Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-100(d) (West 2020)) and 5-5-3(c)(2)(H) of the Code of Corrections (id. § 5-5-3(c)(2)(H)), defendants may not receive credit for time spent in home detention prior to judgment if they were convicted of a nonprobationable offense, such as criminal sexual assault. The trial court observed that "this is the first time any state’s attorney has argued to me that a defendant is not entitled to credit while on electronic monitoring, other than in some driving related offenses." The trial court subsequently stated that "it may very well be that there have been very few people in front of this court, if any, charged with this type of an offense that actually were out on electronic monitoring." The trial court concluded that defendant was not entitled to credit for the time he spent under electronic monitoring. Defendant was sentenced to the minimum term of four years’ imprisonment.

¶ 18 In denying defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence, the trial court stated that "the sentence might have been somewhat different had the defendant been given credit for all that time [on electronic monitoring], but I do think it’s something to take into consideration. So that’s why I sentenced him to the minimum sentence that was imposed here." This appeal followed.

¶ 19 ANALYSIS

¶ 20 On appeal, defendant argues that his criminal sexual assault conviction should be reversed since the State failed to prove all of the statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also contends that the version of section 5-4.5-100 of the Code of Corrections under which he was sentenced (id. § 5-4.5-100) violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV) and Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2).

¶ 21 Sufficiency of the Evidence

[1] ¶ 22 Defendant argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed criminal sexual assault. Section 11-4.20(a) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a) (West 2016)) states that a person commits criminal sexual assault if that person commits an act of sexual penetration and (1) uses force or...