People v. James, 4-04-0414.

• Decision Date: 12 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. 4-04-0414.,4-04-0414.
• Citation: 841 N.E.2d 1109
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

841 N.E.2d 1109

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-04-0414.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

January 12, 2006.

Rehearing Dismissed February 10, 2006.

Daniel M. Kirwan, Deputy Defender (Court-appointed), Rita K. Peterson, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for Darrell James.

John P. Schmidt, State's Attorney, Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Springfield, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Kevin D. Sweeney, Staff Attorney, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, for the People.

Presiding Justice TURNER delivered the opinion of the court:

In summer 2003, the State charged defendant with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2002)), armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(1) (West 2002)), and home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12-11(a)(3) (West 2002)). Shortly after his arrest, the trial court appointed the public defender to represent defendant. Before opening statements at his January 2004 bench trial, defendant elected to proceed pro se. At the conclusion of his trial, the court found defendant guilty of all three charges. At a joint hearing in April 2004, the court denied defendant's posttrial motions and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 45 years for armed robbery, 7 years for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and 45 years for home invasion. In May 2005, the court denied defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence.

Defendant appeals, contending (1) the trial court's refusal to consider his pretrial, pro se motions violated his fifth- and sixth-amendment rights (U.S. Const., amends. V, VI), and (2) his prison term for home invasion should be reduced to 30 years since the 15-year sentence enhancement imposed on his sentence violates the proportionate-penalties clause. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2003, the State charged defendant with unlawful use of a weapon and armed robbery (the home-invasion charge was later brought on August 20, 2003). At a July 31, 2003, hearing, the trial court appointed the public defender to represent defendant. At the August 14, 2003, preliminary hearing, defendant was represented by Bob Scherschligt. On August 26, 2003, the Sangamon County public defender assigned defendant's case to Assistant Public Defender Craig Reiser.

On September 8, 2003, defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the home-invasion charge. In a letter to the trial court, defendant alleged his attorney did not think the motion was a good one and refused to file it. Defendant requested the appointment of another public defender because he did not think Reiser would represent him to the fullest. That same day, the court addressed defendant's request at a hearing. Defendant stated Reiser had indicated everyone thought defendant was guilty, including himself. Reiser denied making such a statement, and the court denied defendant's request.

In a letter filed October 21, 2003, to the trial court, defendant complained about a police photographic lineup and stated Reiser was not trying to help him. Defendant contended Reiser "kept on telling [him] about the State['s] defen[s]e trying to scare [him] into copping out for something that [he] didn't do." On November 18, 2003, Reiser filed a motion to suppress the identification of defendant in the photographic lineup.

In a letter to the trial court filed November 19, 2003, defendant alleged a witness at his preliminary hearing committed perjury and again asserted Reiser was working against him by trying to get him "to cop out." On December 8, 2003, defendant filed pro se (1) a motion to suppress evidence regarding his tribal band tattoo, (2) a motion to suppress the photographic lineup, (3) a motion to "squash" the statements made by Brandon Mason, (4) a motion to "squash" his arrest warrant, (5) a motion to "squash" a letter, (6) a motion to "squash" a supposed statement defendant made to the police, and (7) another motion to "squash" his arrest.

On December 9, 2003, Reiser filed a motion in limine regarding defendant's prior convictions, which the trial court later granted. On December 10, 2003, defendant filed pro se a motion for additional discovery and another letter to the court. He asserted Reiser refused to file defendant's motions and was working with the State to frame defendant. He also criticized Reiser for his continuances. On December 15, 2005, defendant filed pro se a motion to dismiss the case and two letters to the court. Defendant again asserted Reiser was working with the State and criticized Reiser's continuances.

On December 22, 2003, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress identification at which Reiser represented defendant. At the beginning of the hearing, Reiser informed the court defendant had filed a complaint with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which was unfounded. He further stated he had no problem representing defendant, and the court declined to investigate the matter any further. After the court denied the suppression motion, Reiser pointed out to the court defendant's pro se motions. Reiser noted he had looked over the motions and put them in his motion to suppress defendant's identification. In response, the court noted its rule not to consider pro se motions filed by defendants when they are represented by counsel. Reiser continued to file documents in defendant's case until defendant's January 2004 trial.

On January 20, 2004, the trial court commenced defendant's trial with Reiser representing defendant. After a jury was selected, defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and the court continued the trial to the next day. At the beginning of the bench trial, defendant again brought up his complaints about Reiser trying to get him "to cop out" and refusing to file defendant's motions. Reiser indicated he was happy to represent defendant and could answer all of defendant's allegations. The prosecutor stated he had very few plea discussions with Reiser since he did not feel defendant "was an individual that [he] should be giving too many breaks to." The prosecutor also noted Reiser had been thorough in his discovery and in preparing for trial. The court then declined to discharge Reiser. Defendant then indicated he wanted to proceed pro se. The court allowed defendant to proceed pro se with Reiser as stand-by counsel. Defendant then asked to be heard on his prior pro se motions. The court refused and began the trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of all three charges. Reiser filed a posttrial motion, and defendant filed pro se several amendments to the posttrial motion. At the April 2004 hearing on the posttrial motions and sentencing, the court noted it had reviewed all of defendant's pretrial, pro se motions and denied any that were left unresolved. Defendant then argued the posttrial motions, and the court denied those as well. At defendant's request, Reiser represented defendant on the sentencing portion of the hearing. The court sentenced defendant as stated. Reiser then filed a motion to reconsider and reduce defendant's sentence, which the court denied. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

The questions presented in this appeal are ones of law, and thus our review de novo. See People v. Breedlove, 213 Ill.2d 509, 512, 290 Ill.Dec. 602, 821 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (2004) (pure questions of law are reviewed de novo).

A. Defendant's Pro Se Motions

Defendant first asserts his fifth-amendment right to due process and sixth-amendment right to self-representation were violated when the trial court refused to hear his pro se motions. We disagree.

A defendant has the right either to have counsel represent him or to represent himself. However, a defendant does not have the right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel. People v. Serio, 357 Ill.App.3d 806, 815, 294 Ill. Dec. 337, 830 N.E.2d 749, 757 (2005). Stated differently, a defendant possesses "no right to some sort of hybrid representation, whereby he would receive the services of counsel and still be permitted to file pro se motions." People v. Handy, 278 Ill.App.3d 829, 836, 216 Ill.Dec. 114, 664 N.E.2d 1042, 1046 (1996). Thus, when a defendant is represented by counsel, the defendant generally has no authority to file pro se motions, and the court should not consider them. Serio, 357 Ill.App.3d at 815, 294 Ill.Dec. 337, 830 N.E.2d at 757.

A defendant cannot circumvent the above rule by electing to proceed pro se right before opening statements and have pretrial, pro se motions addressed. When a defendant elects to have an attorney represent him, his role and his attorney's role are defined. People v. Pondexter, 214 Ill.App.3d 79, 87, 157 Ill.Dec. 921, 573 N.E.2d 339, 345 (1991). The defendant retains the right to make decisions involving "fundamental rights" such as whether to plead guilty or not guilty, whether to waive jury trial, whether to testify, and whether to appeal. See Pondexter, 214 Ill.App.3d at 87, 157 Ill.Dec. 921, 573 N.E.2d at 345. However, counsel has control over "the day-to-day conduct of the defense" and the handling of strategic matters that involve "'the superior ability of counsel.'" Pondexter, 214 Ill.App.3d at 87, 157 Ill.Dec. 921, 573 N.E.2d at 345, quoting People v. Campbell, 129 Ill.App.3d 819, 821, 84 Ill.Dec. 913, 473 N.E.2d 129, 131 (1984).

Here, defendant received Reiser's assistance throughout the pretrial period. Thus, to allow defendant to have his pretrial, pro se motions that addressed strategic matters under Reiser's control would constitute hybrid representation and essentially allow defendant to relitigate pretrial issues. Such a result is impermissible since, as we have explained, the right to self-representation and the assistance of counsel cannot be exercised at the same time. Pondexter, 214 Ill.App.3d at 87, 157 Ill.Dec. 921, 573 N.E.2d at 345.

Additionally, we...