People v. Bares
| Decision Date | 30 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | 80-34,Nos. 80-33,s. 80-33 |
| Citation | 53 Ill.Dec. 154,423 N.E.2d 538,97 Ill.App.3d 728 |
| Parties | , 53 Ill.Dec. 154 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas H. BARES and James R. Edwards, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Mary Robinson, John J. Barrett, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for defendants-appellants.
Phyllis J. Perko, Marshall Stevens, State Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendants, Thomas H. Bares and James R. Edwards, were jointly tried and found guilty of the offenses of armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 18-2) and robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 18-1) in a jury trial in the circuit court of Kane County. Upon denial of their post trial motions, and after vacating the judgments of conviction for the lesser included offense of robbery, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Bares to six years imprisonment and Edwards to 26 years imprisonment. Defendant Bares appeals from the denial of his pre-trial motion to quash his arrest, alleging it was effectuated inside his apartment without an arrest warrant and absent exigent circumstances. Defendant Edwards appeals only his sentence, contending it was excessive compared with that of his co-defendant, and asks us to reduce that sentence.
At the evidentiary hearing conducted on the motion to quash the arrest, the following pertinent testimony was introduced. Detective Joseph Donahoe of the Carpentersville Police Department stated that on July 15, 1979, there was an armed robbery of a Carpentersville 7-Eleven store. After talking to an informant, Donahoe contacted Detectives Ryan and Baker of the Chicago Police Department since he had reason to believe that one of the offenders lived in the area of Seeley Avenue in Chicago. Donahoe also had learned from the witnesses that two white males in their twenties were involved in the hold-up and that the vehicle they were driving was a yellow Chevrolet Monte Carlo with license plates which began with the letters "U.S." Donahoe drove to Chicago the next evening and discussed the case with the Chicago detectives, who gave him seven photographs of possible suspects. Donahoe returned to Carpentersville with the photos and showed them to the store clerks who were working at the time of the robbery. The two clerks who were operating the cash register at the time both identified defendant Bares as one of the participants. After this photo identification of Bares, Donahoe contacted a Kane County assistant state's attorney who "authorized a warrant for the arrest of Thomas Bares for armed robbery." The Chicago police were then notified that Bares had been identified as one of the assailants. Bares was arrested that evening by Chicago police officers; the arrest warrant was not issued until the following morning.
Detectives Ryan and Baker testified regarding being contacted by Donahoe in reference to the armed robbery. They indicated that Donahoe gave them a description of the suspects, the weapons used and the automobile involved (a yellow Monte Carlo with license plates beginning with "US 42__ __"). After checking the US 4200 series, the officers found no plates registered to a yellow Monte Carlo. Baker and Ryan then met with Donahoe and another Carpentersville officer and went to the area of Wilson and Damen avenues in Chicago since they had information that a third suspect, a juvenile, was involved and lived in that neighborhood. That trip proved to be fruitless, but the two Chicago officers later returned by themselves to that vicinity and spotted a yellow Monte Carlo double parked at approximately 4524 North Seeley. Baker and Ryan ran a check on the license plates, YJ 2199, which came back registered to Thomas Bares with an Elk Grove Village address.
A photo of Mr. Bares was obtained from police records and given to Carpentersville police. After a positive identification had been made, Donahoe called the Chicago officers and informed them of the identification and of the fact that he was in the process of obtaining a warrant. A short time after this conversation, at approximately 10:45 p.m., Ryan and Baker, along with two other Chicago detectives, drove to the area of Damen and Wilson in an attempt to locate the vehicle again. The officers spotted the vehicle with four occupants proceeding northbound on Seeley Avenue.
After spotting the vehicle, the Chicago detectives pursued it for approximately a quarter of a block with the headlights of their unmarked car flashing. When the Monte Carlo stopped, Detectives Baker and Ryan said they exited their vehicle, Ryan with a shotgun and Baker with a sidearm. Baker then said: According to Ryan and Baker, the Monte Carlo then sped off at a high rate of speed. Ryan then fired one round from the shotgun at the lower right rear side of the vehicle "in an attempt to disable the vehicle." The vehicle immediately stopped and defendant Edwards exited from the driver's seat and was taken into custody, along with the other three occupants of the vehicle. A loaded 32 caliber revolver was found underneath the front seat by the driver's side. In response to questioning by Ryan, Edwards told the officers that the vehicle belonged to Thomas Bares and indicated that Bares was in an apartment building off to the side of the street.
Detective Ryan, along with another detective and a uniformed officer, went to the front of the building at 4525 North Seeley Avenue, while Detective Baker went to the rear of the building with another detective and a uniformed officer. As Ryan approached the building, he met the landlady of the building who told him that Bares lived on the first floor. While she went off to find a key to Bares' apartment, the police knocked on his door. After approximately five minutes of knocking, the landlady had not returned with a key so, according to Ryan, the officers entered Bares' apartment through an unlocked window. After Bares was secured, the other officers were let in through the front door. As the officers entered through the window, one of the uniformed men yelled, "Police." Defendant Bares was found laying on a mattress in one of the bedrooms and was subsequently arrested at gun point, taken into custody, and a gun and money seized.
Rose Marie Hoffman, defendant's landlady, testified at the hearing that on July 16, 1979, she was watching television in her home when she heard a gunshot. She went outside and saw that two detectives' cars had pinned in Bares' Monte Carlo, which had several gunshot holes in it. After back-up police arrived, Detective Ryan said, "Let's get Bares." She testified that the following conversation then took place:
When she returned to tell the officers that she couldn't find a key, she observed that they had removed a screen to Bares' apartment window. After the police left, she went in and "closed up" Bares' apartment.
Diane Abdelkoui testified that on July 16, 1979, at approximately 10:15 p.m. she was riding in a Monte Carlo with James Edwards, Michael Abdelkoui and Betty Dunn. As Edwards was preparing to park the vehicle, Michael Abdelkoui looked back to see if the car would fit into the parking space, and yelled, "Everybody duck, someone's going to shoot at us." Then, a shot was fired at their vehicle and they were ordered to come out. Abdelkoui said that, prior to the gunshot, they were given no warning to stop. After the shot, she said Edwards "floored the car" but stopped after travelling approximately 10 yards.
Betty Dunn's testimony corroborated that of Abdelkoui regarding the events leading up to, and just after, the car was struck with gunfire. She said that at the time the shot was fired, Edwards was actually backing the car up and that after the shot was fired the car went forward for several inches before stopping. Both Dunn and Abdelkoui said that the officers did not identify themselves as police when they stopped the car.
After argument by the State and defense counsel, the court denied the motion to quash the arrest. Defendants also filed a motion to suppress oral and written statements made while in custody. Following a hearing thereon, the trial court denied that motion. However, the propriety of that ruling is not at issue here.
At trial, the following additional relevant testimony was adduced. Julie Aguirre testified that on July 15, 1979 she was employed as a cashier at the Carpentersville 7-Eleven and was working with Sue Mueller, another cashier. At about 3 p. m., a man, whom she later identified as defendant Edwards, approached the cashiers holding a gun and said, Aguirre opened the cash drawer and put a stack of twenties on the counter, but Edwards demanded, "There has to be more money." She then put the ten dollar bills on the counter also.
Aguirre then attempted to hit the burglar alarm and Edwards screamed, "You hit the burglar alarm." She shouted "no" and ducked under the counter while Sue Mueller ran to the back of the store. Aguirre then heard someone come behind the counter, pick up and drop the cash register drawer. That individual, whom she identified in court as defendant Bares, also carried a gun.
At that point, Aguirre stood up and saw Edwards bringing the store manager, Nancy Kuppin, up to the front of the store. Kuppin was walking in front of Edwards and he held her by one arm while pointing a gun at her. He then ordered her to open the store safe. After that was accomplished, the defendants ran out of the store. While Aguirre did not observe the defendants removing money from the safe, she did look in the safe after they left and saw that it was empty. Just after the robbery, sh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. White
...498, 460 N.E.2d 802; People v. Bennett (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 64, 45 Ill.Dec. 419, 412 N.E.2d 1001.) People v. Bares (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 728, 53 Ill.Dec. 154, 423 N.E.2d 539, cited by the defendant in support of his argument, is clearly distinguishable on its facts, particularly the fact t......
-
People v. Gard
...for the law require that defendants similarly situated not receive grossly disparate sentences. (People v. Bares (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 728, 738, 53 Ill.Dec. 154, 161, 423 N.E.2d 538, 545.) When determining whether a sentence is excessive in light of a lesser sentence imposed on a codefendan......
-
People v. Jones
...N.E.2d 562, 571-72, rev'd on other grounds, (1982), 92 Ill.2d 490, 65 Ill.Dec. 843, 442 N.E.2d 154; People v. Bares (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 728, 738, 53 Ill.Dec. 154, 161, 423 N.E.2d 538, 545.) Fundamental fairness commands that a court not punish one defendant more severely than his equally ......
-
People v. Bergman
...Defendant, however, also points to the great disparity in sentences as an abuse of discretion. In People v. Bares (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 728, 53 Ill.Dec. 154, 423 N.E.2d 538, we recognized that while differences in the degree of participation in the commission of the crime by co-defendants a......