People v. Almore
| Decision Date | 24 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 109649.,109649. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,v.James ALMORE, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
241 Ill.2d 387
948 N.E.2d 574
350 Ill.Dec. 294
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,
v.
James ALMORE, Appellee.
No. 109649.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
March 24, 2011.
[948 N.E.2d 575]
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (James Fitzgerald, Alan J. Spellberg, Eve Reilly and Annette Collins, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.Douglas H. Johnson, of Kathleen T. Zellner & Associates, of Oakbrook, for appellee.
Defendant James Almore was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in relation to the death of two-year-old Ethan Hamilton. Almore was later sentenced to an extended term of 12 years' imprisonment pursuant to section 9–3(f) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/9–3(f) (West 2006)). The extended sentence was based on the Cook County circuit court's finding that defendant and the victim were “family or household members” as that term is defined in section 112A–3(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/112A–3(3) (West 2006)).
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction, but vacated defendant's sentence. No. 1–08–1459 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The appellate court held that the evidence did not support the trial court's finding that defendant and the victim were “family or household members” within [241 Ill.2d 390] the meaning of the statute. The matter was remanded to the circuit court for resentencing.
We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal. The single issue before us is whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that defendant and the victim “shared a common dwelling” within the
[350 Ill.Dec. 296 , 948 N.E.2d 576]
meaning of section 112A–3(3) and, thus, were “family or household members,” justifying an extended sentence.
For reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.
On the morning of August 23, 2006, Lovia Hampton went to work and left her two-year-old son, Ethan, in the care of her boyfriend, defendant James Almore. Defendant had been Lovia's boyfriend since November 2004 and on August 23, 2006, Lovia and Ethan had been staying with defendant at his temporary residence at 1228 West 99th Street in Chicago for the previous five days.
Neither Lovia nor defendant had a residence of their own. Lovia and Ethan ordinarily lived with Lovia's mother, siblings, and other extended family in the Hampton family home at 56 West 114th Place in Chicago. Defendant had stayed with Lovia and Ethan in the Hampton home on several occasions. Defendant's temporary residence was the upstairs apartment in the home of his aunt, Ruby Watkins, at 1228 West 99th Street in Chicago. There, defendant lived with his two cousins, Charles Watkins and Howard Terrell Williams. Watkins and Williams had their own bedrooms, but defendant slept on an air mattress in the living room of the upstairs apartment.
When Lovia left for work around 7 a.m. that August morning, Ethan was still sleeping. According to defendant, Ethan woke up around 10 a.m. and they played “wrestling” and “boxing” games together. Defendant then left Ethan on the air mattress with a juice box and [241 Ill.2d 391] some powdered doughnuts while defendant went into another room to use a computer. Later, defendant allegedly heard Ethan coughing and returned to the living room. There he found Ethan lying lifelessly on the floor near the air mattress. Defendant also noticed that Ethan had “spit up” on the air mattress.
Believing that Ethan had choked on a doughnut, defendant yelled for his cousin, Williams, and they each attempted the Heimlich maneuver on Ethan. Defendant also called 911 and was given instructions on how to perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Defendant and Williams both attempted to perform CPR on Ethan until paramedics arrived.
The 911 call was received just before 11 a.m. on August 23, 2006. Within a few minutes of the call, paramedics arrived at defendant's residence. They continued to perform CPR on Ethan as they transported him to the hospital. At the hospital, advanced lifesaving measures were taken. Nonetheless, Ethan could not be revived. He was pronounced dead soon after his arrival at the hospital. An autopsy was performed and the medical examiner ruled Ethan's death a homicide. The autopsy report indicated that Ethan was covered in fresh bruises consistent with abuse and that he had internal injuries which suggested that Ethan had been held against a wall or floor while being punched or kicked. Based on the autopsy report, defendant was charged with first degree murder. In a bench trial, defendant was tried on that charge and convicted.
Ten days after the court found defendant guilty of murder, the court heard argument on defendant's posttrial motion for new trial. Based on defense counsel's argument, the trial court vacated defendant's murder conviction and, instead, found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Immediately thereafter, the court proceeded to sentencing. After hearing argument, [241 Ill.2d 392] the court imposed an extended-term sentence of 12 years' imprisonment based on its finding that the
[350 Ill.Dec. 297 , 948 N.E.2d 577]
victim and defendant were “ household or family members.” See 720 ILCS 5/9–3(f) (West 2006).
Defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed defendant's involuntary manslaughter conviction, but vacated the extended sentence. The court held that, in order for defendant and Ethan to be “family or household members,” the evidence had to show they “shared a common dwelling” within the meaning of section 112A–3(3). Relying on People v. Young, 362 Ill.App.3d 843, 298 Ill.Dec. 712, 840 N.E.2d 825 (2005), the court interpreted “shared a common dwelling” to mean that the persons in question must have stayed together “on an extended, indefinite, or regular basis.” The court then held the evidence did not show that the victim and defendant “shared a common dwelling” because there was no evidence presented at trial indicating that defendant, the victim, and Hampton stayed together on an extended or regular basis. As a result, the court held the evidence did not support the trial court's finding that defendant and Ethan were household members within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. the Bd. of Review
...notice from the Department. See 19 U.S.C. § 2311(f)(1) (requiring notice to “each worker who applies for unemployment insurance”). [948 N.E.2d 574 , 350 Ill.Dec. 294] As to the substance of the conversation, the record does not support any inference that Williams had enough information to c......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...People v. Glisson, 202 Ill.2d 499, 505, 270 Ill.Dec. 57, 782 N.E.2d 251 (2002). Our review is de novo. People v. Almore, 241 Ill.2d 387, 394, 350 Ill.Dec. 294, 948 N.E.2d 574 (2011).¶ 45 Section 24–1.2(a) defines aggravated discharge of a firearm, specifying nine ways to commit the offense.......
-
People v. Harris
...a building or any other enclosure specified in the burglary statute is a question of law that we review de novo. People v. Almore, 241 Ill.2d 387, 394, 350 Ill.Dec. 294, 948 N.E.2d 574 (2011).¶ 18 The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of th......
- People v. King