People v. Boyce
| Decision Date | 27 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-10-2318,1-10-2318 |
| Citation | 2013 IL App (1st) 102318 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY BOYCE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e).
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.
¶ 1 HELD: Defendant's conviction for the offense of attempted solicitation of murder affirmed; his mittimus is corrected to properly reflect that offense; and his sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of attempted solicitation of murder and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction and the sentence imposed thereon, arguing: (1) the trial court improperly denied his pre-trial motion tosuppress evidence; (2) he was convicted of a non-existent offense; (3) the State failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) the court erred in failing to consider a presentence investigation report prior to imposing his sentence; and (5) his mittimus must be corrected to reflect the proper name and class of the offense of which he was convicted. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm defendant's conviction and correct the mittimus; however, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
¶ 4 In 2003, defendant was convicted of first degree murder for the 2001 killing of Lorenzo Hamilton. The murder was part of an alleged insurance fraud plot. Eric Lindsay, an insurance policy salesman, provided significant testimony at defendant's trial, including the fact that members of defendant's family were beneficiaries of a $500,000 life insurance policy that had been taken out on Hamilton. After being found guilty of Hamilton's murder, defendant was sentenced to natural life imprisonment at the Illinois Department of Corrections. Beginning on November 19, 2008, while serving the aforementioned sentence, defendant attempted to mail a series of letters that were subsequently intercepted and opened by prison officials. Based on the contents of the letters, defendant was charged with one count of solicitation of murder and one count of attempted solicitation of murder. The State subsequently nolle prosequied the solicitation of murder charge and the cause proceeded on the attempt count.
¶ 5 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the letters, arguing that prison officials had insufficient articulable suspicion to warrant opening his mail since the envelopes were addressed to an attorney and identified as privileged legal mail. Specifically, he argued that"[t]he officers' actions at the time of these searches were not reasonable, because the markings on the letters could not have reasonably raised sufficient suspicion to overcome [his] constitutional rights and expectations of privacy under the law." The court presided over a suppression hearing, which proceeded by way of stipulation. The parties stipulated that Officer Heather Cecil was working in the mailroom of the Lawrence Correctional Facility on November 19, 2008. During that time, Officer Cecil saw a letter in which defendant was identified as the sender. The envelope was marked "Legal Mail" and bore the following address:
Jennifer Bonjean attorney at Law C. Davis
P.O. Box #24433
Officer Cecil contacted the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) to inquire about Bonjean. She learned that Bonjean was licensed to practice law in Illinois, but had a New York City address. Officer Cecil did not conduct any additional inquiries about the New York City address. Cecil also did not consult "Martindale Hubble" or any other source to determine whether any other addresses were associated with Jennifer Bonjean. According to www.martindale.com Bonjean had an Illinois address at 601 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois. Although Officer Cecil knew that C. Davis was defendant's aunt, she did not know whether she was aware of their relationship before or after she forwarded the letters to the prison's Intelligence Unit.
¶ 6 Based on the fact that defendant's envelope was not addressed to Bonjean's New York City address as listed with the ARDC, but to a Chicago P.O. Box bearing a third-party's name on the envelope, Cecil concluded that defendant's letter was not actually "legal mail." Accordingly,Cecil crossed out the words "legal mail" and "attorney at law" on the envelope, opened the envelope and read the contents contained within. Cecil found two notes within the envelope. One was undated and the other was dated November 18, 2008. Neither of the letters was directed to an attorney.
¶ 7 On December 8, 2008, while working in the Lawrence Correctional Facility's mailroom, Officer Cecil intercepted another letter from defendant. This letter was also identified as "legal mail" and bore the same address listed in previous letter. As she had done before, Officer Cecil excised the terms "attorney at law" and "legal mail" from the envelope. Because defendant's mail was being monitored due to the earlier incident, Officer Cecil passed the letter on to Rich Casburn, an officer with the prison's Intelligence Unit. This procedure was followed on all subsequent correspondence mailed by defendant.
¶ 8 After receiving defendant's letters, Officer Casburn obtained copies of defendant's visitor and telephone lists. On those lists, Bonjean's address was identified as 11 Broadway New York, NY 10004. Officer Casburn was aware that Bonjean was defendant's appellate lawyer. He did not check any other sources to determine whether there were additional addresses associated with Bonjean's name. Based on additional information contained in the lists, Officer Casburn also learned that C. Davis was defendant's aunt.
¶ 9 Despite the terminology used on the envelopes, it was apparent to Officer Casburn that none of the letters were directed to an attorney. In his letters, defendant instructed a friend named "Zay" to murder a "hype" and to frame Eric Lindsay, one of the witness's who testified at defendant's earlier trial, for the hype's murder.
¶ 10 After the initial searches of defendant's letters, correctional officers continued monitoring defendant's correspondence and intercepted four more letters. All of the letters were similarly addressed either to Bonjean or her firm and were marked as "Legal Mail." Officer Casburn determined that each of the letters were not really legal mail; rather, they were prohibited third-party letters. Each of the letters contained similar instructions to "Zay" about the murder of a "hype."
¶ 11 After hearing the aforementioned stipulated testimony and arguments of the parties, the court denied defendant's motion to suppress. The court reasoned:
¶ 12 Following the court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress, the cause proceeded to a bench trial on the attempted solicitation of murder charge.
¶ 13 At trial, the parties stipulated to the testimony of Heather Cecil, the mail room employee at the Lawrence Correctional Center who intercepted and opened the initial letter sent by Boyce during his incarceration, and of Rich Casburn, the Intelligence Unit Officer to whom Cecil forwarded the letters. The stipulated testimony was substantially the same as the testimony provided at the earlier suppression hearing.
¶ 14 John Duffy, an Investigator with the Cook County State's Attorney's office, testified that on November 24, 2008, he was assigned to investigate letters that had been intercepted by the Illinois Department of Corrections. A letter dated November 18, 2008, provided as follows:
[Line drawn...
To continue reading
Request your trial