People v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4-21-0103,4-19-0705 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID D. BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford County Nos. 18CF8118TR996 Honorable Michael L. Stroh, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding (1) the State failed to prove defendant guilty of driving with a suspended license beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence was proper, and (3) the trial court's Rule 431(b) admonishments did not constitute a clear error requiring reversal.
¶ 2 In these consolidated cases, defendant, David D. Boyd appeals from his convictions for possession of a stolen motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1) (West 2018)), a Class 2 felony (Woodford County case No. 18-CF-81), and driving while his license was revoked (id. § 6-303(a)), a Class A misdemeanor (Woodford County case No. 18-TR-996). Defendant argues (1) the State failed to prove him guilty of driving while his license was revoked beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop leading to his arrest, and (3) the trial court failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). The State concedes it failed to prove defendant guilty of driving while his license was revoked and that his conviction in case No. 18-TR-996 should be reversed. The State asserts this court should otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment arguing the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress and substantially complied with Rule 431(b). We reverse defendant's conviction for driving while his license was revoked and otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 4 In May 2018, the State charged defendant by information with (1) possession of a stolen motor vehicle, a Class 2 felony (625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1) (West 2018)), in that he knowingly and without authority possessed a vehicle belonging to Emma J. Jackson, a 2002 Kia Optima, while knowing it to have been stolen and (2) driving while his license was revoked, a Class A misdemeanor (id. § 6-303(a)), in that he drove a motor vehicle in Woodford County, Illinois, at a time when his driving privilege was revoked. In July 2018, the information with respect to the charge for possession of a stolen motor vehicle was superseded by indictment.
¶ 6 In July 2018, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. In his motion, defendant argued at the time he was initially stopped and questioned regarding his possession of the allegedly stolen vehicle, officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant or probable cause to arrest him, and therefore his constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. 1, § 6. Defendant argued any evidence gathered subsequent to his arrest should therefore be suppressed.
¶ 7 In August 2018, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, wherein the following evidence was presented.
¶ 9 Defendant testified as follows. On May 24, 2018, defendant was walking down a public street in Metamora, Illinois, around 2 p.m. A police officer pulled into a public parking lot, where he exited his police vehicle and approached defendant. The officer asked defendant for identification, which he provided, and about where he was going. A short time later, a second officer arrived, who also asked him questions. After the officers appeared to be finished asking him questions, defendant asked if he could leave, and the officers responded," '[N]ot yet.'" The officers informed defendant they were in contact with another officer regarding a car that had been stolen nearby and asked whether defendant had stolen it. Defendant denied stealing a car. The officers asked if defendant would be willing to be transported to another location "to go and be identified," to which defendant responded he would not. Defendant again asked if he could leave, and again officers told him,"' [N]ot yet.'
¶ 10 Following a back-and-forth via radio between the officers at defendant's location and the other officer inquiring about the stolen car, defendant was ordered to turn around, face the police vehicle, and place his hands behind his back. The officers placed defendant in handcuffs and removed all of the items from defendant's pockets before putting him into the first officer's vehicle. Defendant testified he spoke with the officers for approximately 10 to 15 minutes before being handcuffed.
¶ 11 The first officer then drove defendant about 10 minutes away to a home on a "country road." Defendant was not familiar with Metamora and testified he informed officers he would not voluntarily go to that location. Upon arrival, defendant heard an additional officer, who was already at the location, say,"' [Y]eah, that's the guy. Just put him in my car.' Defendant was then transferred into the vehicle of the additional officer. Defendant then observed two men drive up from behind the home in either "a two-seater driving lawn mower" or a "golf cart." The officer then opened the door to the vehicle so defendant, who was still in handcuffs, was visible. The two men stopped to speak with each other and looked toward defendant. One of the men "nodded" to the officer who was on the scene when defendant arrived, after which the men proceeded back behind the home.
¶ 12 On cross-examination, defendant testified at the time of his arrest, he lived in Chatham, Illinois. Defendant admitted he was wearing blue jeans and a red, long-sleeved shirt, and had long hair and a beard when he was arrested. Defendant agreed when he arrived at the home with the officers, his hair looked the same and he was wearing the same clothing as when the officers initially approached him.
¶ 14 Deputy Michael Ealey testified he worked for the sheriff's department in Woodford County. On the afternoon of May 24, 2018, Deputy Ealey received a call regarding a suspicious car outside of Metamora at 1356 Douglas Road. When he arrived, Officer Peter Merkle from the Metamora Police Department was there. Deputy Ealey observed the suspicious car in question, which was a Kia Optima. The car had been reported as stolen earlier that morning.
¶ 15 The two men who had called the vehicle in, Ralph Norton and William Christ, approached Deputy Ealey and Officer Merkle and told the officers they observed a man pull up in the Kia, exit it, and "walk around the vehicle like there was something wrong with it." They noticed the Kia appeared to be "smoking." They further described the man as white, tall, and thin, with long hair and a long-sleeved maroon shirt. Officer Merkle informed Deputy Ealey he saw a man matching that description earlier in Metamora near a McDonald's. After Officer Merkle provided the description to the rest of the police department, Chief Michael Todd of the Metamora police department also observed a man matching that description near the McDonald's. Officer Merkle then departed to assist Chief Todd in making contact with the potential suspect while Deputy Ealey stayed at the Douglas Road house.
¶ 16 When Officer Merkle returned, he had a passenger with him, whom Deputy Ealey identified as defendant. Deputy Ealey observed defendant was wearing a maroon long-sleeved shirt and had long hair and a beard. Based on the description, Deputy Ealey believed defendant was the suspect they were looking for. Deputy Ealey then transferred defendant from Officer Merkle's vehicle to his own, at which point Norton and Christ informed him that defendant was the man they previously observed exit the Kia. Norton and Christ also informed Deputy Ealey when they initially saw the Kia, it was being driven on their street very slowly and there was "a line of cars behind it," which they found suspicious. After the Kia was parked in front of the home, they saw the man who exited was wearing long sleeves, which they also found "odd" because it was a hot day; the temperature was over 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
¶ 17 On cross-examination, Deputy Ealey admitted he did not ask Norton and Christ how far away they were when they saw defendant. Deputy Ealey also agreed he did not separate Norton or Christ before having them make the identification. There was no reason defendant was not taken to the jail and put through a "regular lineup procedure."
¶ 19 Officer Peter Merkle testified he worked for the Metamora Police Department as a patrol officer. On May 24, 2018, he responded to a call at 1356 Douglas Road regarding "a suspicious male in a vehicle." Upon arrival, Officer Merkle observed the Kia and ran its license plates, which "came back as a stolen vehicle out of Peoria." He then received a description of a white male suspect that included "a long-sleeve red shirt, blue jeans and a hat, long hair." Prior to receiving that description and on his way to the Douglas Road house, Officer Merkle had driven past a man matching that description near the McDonald's on Route 116. Officer Merkle then contacted his chief via radio and asked him to stop the man he had seen near the McDonald's "for questioning." Once Deputy Ealey arrived at the house, Officer Merkle...
To continue reading
Request your trial