People v. Bridgewater

• Decision Date: 03 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 4-07-0850.,4-07-0850.
• Citation: 904 N.E.2d 171,388 Ill. App. 3d 787
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas K. BRIDGEWATER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

904 N.E.2d 171

388 Ill. App. 3d 787

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas K. BRIDGEWATER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-07-0850.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

March 3, 2009.

Justice STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:

In July 2007, a jury convicted defendant, Nicholas K. Bridgewater, of (1) burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2006)) and (2) theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A) (West 2006)). The trial court later sentenced defendant to (1) an 8-year extended prison term on the burglary count and (2) a 354-day concurrent jail term on the theft count.

Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) he was denied a fair trial because the State failed to comply with certain discovery requirements; (2) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) he should be granted a new sentencing hearing because (a) he was unfit to be sentenced, (b) the court abused its discretion by imposing an extended-term sentence, and (c) the court failed to properly admonish him; and (4) his theft conviction must be vacated as a lesser-included offense of his burglary conviction. We disagree and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 2006, the State charged defendant with (1) burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2006)) and (2) theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A) (West 2006)). Specifically, the State alleged that on November 29, 2006, defendant committed (1) burglary by entering Scotty's convenience store with the intent to commit a theft and (2) theft by knowingly exerting unauthorized control over the convenience store's property with the intent to permanently deprive Scotty's owner of its use.

A. Defendant's Pretrial Motion To Dismiss

Prior to the presentation of evidence at defendant's July 2007 trial, defense counsel moved to dismiss the State's case because the State failed to answer his January 2007 motion for discovery. In response to defense counsel's motion, the court initiated the following colloquy:

"THE COURT: [A]re you saying you have received no discovery whatsoever?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I have received police reports * * * but I have not received any response to my motion for discovery * * * which includes a number of things, including requests for the witnesses, the witnesses' criminal histories, any deals that had been reached with the witnesses in regard [sic] for the testimony, or the co[]defendants's criminal history. All those things that are needed for impeachment since this is essentially a credibility case.

THE COURT: State's Attorney, any response to that?

[PROSECUTOR]: Actually, yes * * *. As you know, I did not file a formal discovery answer[,] which I rarely do with attorneys who are in town— having not tried a case with [defense counsel] before, I will apologize to him for not filing a formal answer. I would state, though, for the record—he has received, now that we're outside the presence of the jury, he received a police report, [and] statements of witnesses in [No.] 06-CF-107. In addition, a police report and copies of statements that are also somewhat relevant to this case, and the misdemeanor case involving the theft of $10.00[,] which I don't have in front of me. In complying with the continued duty of the State to provide defendant with discovery, I provided the defense with a statement from [the man defendant considers his grandfather] that was taken on-well, last month. If he wanted a formal discovery answer, he has ample time to do that. As for the criminal histories—he's right, I didn't provide that to him. If that's an issue to him—all—the only criminal history I'm aware of with any of the witnesses is here in Greene County. I don't have their criminal histories—madam Clerk has them. I don't think the answer to [defense counsel's] not asking me `Hey, where are the criminal histories' is dismissal though.

* * *

[THE COURT]: All right, [defense counsel], here is what [the court] is going to do. [The court is] going to deny the motion [in limine] but * * * going to direct the State to provide you with the criminal history of all of the witnesses as might be the case—all of the State's witnesses—run a criminal history. Give those to the defense attorney and you may look those over, and if you need time to interview the witnesses or to consider that information—I'll give you what-ever amount of time you request * * *."

B. The Evidence Presented at Defendant's Trial

Jonathan Campbell, a Scotty's clerk, testified that on November 29, 2006, defendant, with whom Campbell was familiar and another young man (whom Campbell later came to know as Christopher Morris) came into Scotty's around 3 a.m. After entering the store, defendant came to the counter and asked to use the phone. While defendant used the phone, Morris walked down the liquor aisle.

Campbell explained that he had restocked the shelves in the liquor aisle approximately 10 minutes before defendant and Morris entered Scotty's. When defendant and Morris turned to leave, Campbell noticed that Morris was "holding his coat like there was something in it." After defendant and Morris left Scotty's, Campbell realized that a bottle of Jim Beam whiskey was missing. Because no one else had been in Scotty's since defendant and Morris came in, Campbell assumed they had stolen the bottle of whiskey and ran outside to "stop them." Once outside, Campbell saw defendant and Morris standing in front of "Cy Thompson's Garage," which was located not far from Scotty's. As Campbell approached defendant and Morris, they "took off running around the back side of Cy's." Campbell returned to Scotty's to call the police. Campbell immediately went back outside and saw defendant and Morris get into a car. Moments later, the police arrived and Campbell pointed the officer in the direction of the car's taillights as it disappeared around a corner.

Richard Portwood, the police officer who responded to Campbell's call, testified that he stopped the car that Campbell had identified and that the driver, Lewis Fleury, consented to a search of the car. Defendant and Morris—who were also in the car at the time of the stop—each consented to a search of their person. Portwood explained that although his searches did not reveal any contraband, the group agreed to follow him back to Scotty's. When they arrived at the store, Campbell identified defendant and Morris as the individuals (1) who had been in Scotty's and (2) whom he suspected had taken the bottle of Jim Beam. Defendant denied having any knowledge of the crime. Portwood thereafter released Fleury and defendant but detained Morris for a curfew violation.

After returning to the police station with Morris, Portwood called Morris's mother and obtained her permission to question Morris about the theft. Morris also agreed to answer Portwood's questions. Although Morris had earlier denied any involvement, he later provided a written statement admitting that he and defendant had stolen the bottle of Jim Beam and had hidden it near Cy's garage. Portwood returned to the location where Morris said that he and defendant had left the bottle of Jim Beam but was unable to locate it.

Morris testified that while walking to Scotty's, defendant asked him whether he "wanted to help him steal a fifth." Morris agreed. Defendant told Morris to steal the whiskey while he distracted the clerk. When they entered Scotty's, defendant asked the clerk if he could use the phone. Meanwhile, Morris took the whiskey bottle off the shelf and concealed it under his shirt as he walked outside. After leaving Scotty's, Morris gave the bottle to defendant. Not much later, the clerk came outside and said, "Just give me the fifth back and there won't be no problems." At which time, defendant threw the bottle into the bushes near Cy's garage.

Fleury, whom defendant referred to as his grandfather, testified that he was related to defendant through marriage. Fleury explained that he received a call from defendant the morning of the robbery asking for a ride, and he later picked defendant up near Scotty's. Portwood stopped Fleury shortly thereafter. After being released, Fleury dropped defendant off near the home of defendant's girlfriend.

Evan Treadway testified that he knew defendant because his uncle had married defendant's mother. Treadway explained that his friend, Bobby Maxon, found a bottle of Jim Beam in a shed on Treadway's property. On December 7, 2006, Treadway spoke to defendant about a rumor he had heard about defendant having stolen vodka from a gas station. Defendant corrected him, responding "no, they said it was a bottle of whiskey." Defendant told Treadway that if he wanted a drink, all he had to do was go outside to the shed. Treadway added that he overheard defendant tell Maxon that he spent the night in Treadway's shed approximately three days after the robbery.

Defendant presented the testimony of his half-sister and stepfather. Essentially, these two witnesses testified that (1) defendant could not have been at Scotty's during the time of the robbery because he was with them and, in any event, (2) he did not smell like alcohol the night of the robbery.

The jury later convicted defendant of (1) burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2006)) and (2) theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A) (West 2006)).

C. Defendant's Posttrial Motion for a Continuance

At defendant's September 2007 sentencing hearing, defense counsel requested a continuance due to defendant's mental and physical state. Defense counsel argued as follows:

"[Defendant] is not in any shape today to defend himself in this hearing. He's had an exhausting week as far as mentally and physical situations from getting his medications changed to getting the doses level changed to different types of medications; and he's had a situation here where he's been Tasered a couple of times; and then last night, he was locked up in a suicide chair for a number of hours; and is physically and mentally exhausted."

After hearing arguments and def...