People v. Brantley
| Decision Date | 11 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-13-1431,No. 1-11-2633,1-11-2633,1-13-1431 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTIONE BRANTLEY, 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)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
No. 09 C 17650 (02)
The Honorable Carol A. Kipperman, Judge Presiding.
HELD: The State properly proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of accountability pursuant to the common design rule even though defendant did not shoot at the victim; the trial court did not coerce the jury's verdict in its responses to the notes the jury sent out during deliberations; defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to question a particular juror after that juror reaffirmed his verdict which was in unanimity with the rest of the jury; the trial court did not deny defendant a fair trial by permitting the introduction of prior inconsistent statements from a particular witness which were not cumulative; and his sentence was proper and not impermissibly excessive in light of the circumstances. However, defendant's sentence violated the one-act, one-crime rule and, upon the State's concession, his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm must be vacated.
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, which was held simultaneously with codefendant Darius Williams' bench trial, defendant-appellant Antione Brantley (defendant) was convicted of attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 35 years in prison. He appeals, contending that (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of accountability; (2) the trial court coerced the jury's verdict; (3) his counsel was ineffective for failing to question a hesitant juror; (4) the trial court denied him a fair trial by permitting the State to introduce cumulative prior inconsistent statements from a particular witness; (5) his sentence violated the one-act, one-crime rule; and (6) his sentence was impermissibly excessive in light of various circumstances. He asks that we reverse his convictions outright or reverse them and remand for a new trial and, with respect to his sentence, that we vacate his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm and reverse his sentence, either reducing it or remanding the matter for resentencing. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction for attempted first degree murder and vacate his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm; in addition, we otherwise affirm his sentence, with the modification that his second 35-year term for his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm is, accordingly, vacated.
¶ 3 Defendant was charged with three counts of attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm and aggravated battery in relation toevents that occurred on the afternoon of August 31, 2009, at the home of the victim, Zachary Sanders. Codefendant Williams was also charged and, as noted, he elected to proceed to a bench trial, while defendant chose to have his cause heard by a jury.
¶ 4 At trial, Sanders testified that on the day in question, between 4 and 5 p.m., he was sitting on his front porch talking to defendant on the phone. Sanders and defendant had been good friends for several years and, though they had arguments in the past, these were always merely friendly squabbles. That day, the two were discussing defendant's new car; defendant told Sanders that he obtained it from their mutual friend without paying for it and Sanders told defendant he was lying, since their friend had told him previously that defendant had paid for the car. An argument ensued and Sanders asked defendant why he was "acting tough." In response, defendant told Sanders he would come to his house and show him the car. Upon further questioning by the State, Sanders recounted that defendant also told him, "If I wanted to get you touched, I can get you touched," which Sanders understood to mean "shot or get killed." However, Sanders did not think defendant was serious about harming him and was not afraid of him, so he told defendant to come over. After hanging up the phone, Sanders saw another friend, Shaneata Trotta, across the street and invited her to come over to his porch.
¶ 5 Sanders further testified that, about 20 minutes later, while he was on the porch with Trotta, defendant arrived, driving a white Cadillac Eldorado. Sanders saw codefendant, whom he did not know, in the front passenger seat and the shadow of another person in the back seat. Defendant got out of the car and went up to the porch; he asked Sanders if Trotta was who he was "trying to act tough for." Defendant and Sanders argued and, at one point, Sanders, who isbigger and taller than defendant, stood up, whereupon defendant walked off the porch. Sanders averred that, as defendant walked back to the car, he made a hand signal in the shape of a gun to codefendant and told codefendant to "go on ahead." Sanders stated that, after defendant got back into the driver's seat, codefendant opened the passenger side door of the car, stepped out halfway (with one leg still inside the car), and told Trotta to get off the porch. Once Trotta left, Sanders saw codefendant point a gun at the porch and start shooting in his direction. Sanders tried to dodge the bullets and get into his house, but could not; codefendant eventually stopped shooting, got back into the car and defendant drove away. Sanders was struck by bullets in his arm and chest and was grazed twice in his neck.
¶ 6 On cross-examination, Sanders reiterated that he was never afraid of defendant that day and that the two were friends. He also averred that defendant was unarmed, that he did not see defendant ever have a gun or any other weapon in his hands during the incident, and that defendant never said anything about codefendant having a gun or that codefendant was going to shoot him. In addition, Sanders admitted that in his written statement to police, which he reviewed and signed, he mentioned only that defendant made a hand signal to codefendant, but not that it was in the shape of a gun.
¶ 7 Trotta testified that she was visiting someone across the street when she saw her friend, Sanders, and he waved to her to come over to his porch, where they sat together. Trotta was playing with her phone and Sanders was talking on his, not appearing to be upset in any way. Shortly thereafter, Trotta saw defendant, whom she knew from school, pull up in a white Cadillac, get out of the car, walk up to the porch and start talking to Sanders. During theconversation, to which she was not paying close attention, Trotta heard defendant ask Sanders if he was trying to show off for her. Trotta averred that defendant was not mad or agitated and that Sanders seemed more upset than defendant; they did not raise their voices and the argument ended when Sanders stood up. At this point, defendant left the porch and went back to the car. Trotta observed that defendant did not look upset or angry, and she did not see him make any motions or say anything to anyone as he got back into the car.
¶ 8 Trotta further testified that once defendant was in the car, codefendant, whom she did not know, said something to Sanders and Sanders responded that he was not scared. Trotta stated that she only began to feel tension during this exchange and not before, since she knew that defendant and Sanders were good friends. Trotta averred that, following codefendant and Sanders' exchange, codefendant told her to get off the porch. As she was stepping down, she saw codefendant open the car door, wherein she saw his hand on a gun down by the passenger seat and another man in the back seat. Codefendant then stepped out of the car, lifted up the gun and fired it about three times. Trotta ran into her friend's house and, when she came back outside, she saw Sanders lying on the ground. Later, she spoke to police and identified the passengers in the car.
¶ 9 Delania Zimmerman, defendant's girlfriend at the time of the incident, testified that defendant and Sanders were very good friends who saw each other often. She stated that, earlier on the day of the shooting, defendant was at her house where she heard him on the phone with Sanders and heard him call Sanders "lame." She averred that she did not hear defendant threaten Sanders and that he never said anything about "touching" or shooting him. She further testifiedthat defendant did not have a gun that day, nor had she ever seen him with one, and that he left her house shortly after his telephone conversation with Sanders.
¶ 10 Devontae Gaston, codefendant's foster brother, testified that he did not know Sanders and had never been to his house; Gaston, however, was friends with defendant. On the afternoon in question, defendant came to his and codefendant's house where the three talked on the porch and decided to go for a drive. Gaston averred that defendant did not appear upset or angry and there was no indication that they were going to Sanders' house. They first drove to defendant's grandmother's house; defendant went inside while Gaston and codefendant stayed in the car and smoked marijuana. Defendant got back into the car and they began to drive again, whereupon Gaston laid down in the back seat and fell asleep.
¶ 11 Gaston further testified that when he woke up, the car had stopped and he did not know where he was. He stated that he heard arguing, looked up and saw defendant outside the car arguing with another man (Sanders), whom he did not know, on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial