People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 25 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1–12–2549.,1–12–2549. |
| Citation | 16 N.E.3d 299 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Jamille BROWN, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Christopher Kopacz, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan Spellberg, Matthew Connors, and Whitney Bond, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 Defendant, Jamille Brown, appeals from the order of the circuit court of Cook County summarily dismissing her pro se postconviction petition at the first stage of postconviction proceedings.1 Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated vehicular hijacking, armed robbery, and first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 43 years'imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections. This court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. People v. Brown, 2011 IL App (1st) 093619–U, 2011 WL 10068758
. Thereafter, defendant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. Defendant appeals only from the dismissal of that portion of the petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to (1) transmit the State's 20–year plea offer to her; and (2) present evidence at the motion to suppress hearing that her statement was a product of mental and physical coercion. We determine that the petition does not meet the pleading requirements of section 122–2 of the Post–Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122–2 (West 2012) ) and, thus, we affirm.
¶ 3 Defendant's conviction arose from the December 22, 2005, murder of Abimola Ogunniyi, who was shot in the leg by codefendant Elliott Peterson while Peterson, Joyce McGee (another codefendant), and defendant were hijacking his vehicle. On January 17, 2006, defendant was charged by indictment with multiple counts of first-degree murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated vehicular hijacking, armed violence, aggravated robbery, vehicular hijacking, robbery, aggravated unlawful restraint, and unlawful restraint. The State proceeded to trial only on the counts for first-degree murder, aggravated vehicular hijacking, and armed robbery.2 For purposes of the current appeal, we will reiterate here only those facts which are germane to the issues raised in this appeal.
¶ 5 On March 3, 2009, defendant filed a motion to suppress her statement to police in which she asserted that: (1) her statements to police should be excluded because she was not given all of her Miranda rights, namely, she was not informed that she could request that questioning be stopped; and (2) her statement was a product of “psychological and mental coercion.” On April 2, 2009, during a case status, the following exchange took place:
The trial court set the evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to suppress for May 27, 2009.
¶ 6 A supplemental motion to suppress was filed on May 25, 2009. The motion set forth more facts regarding the alleged psychological and mental coercion. The motion expressly stated that the interrogating officers “ yelled and raised their voices to the defendant, threatened the defendant with forcing her to have her baby in jail in unsanitary circumstances and threatened to charge her along with the co-defendants with the crime itself if she did not make a statement.”
¶ 7 On the day of the hearing, the assistant State's Attorney informed the trial court that defendant's supplemental motion was not supported by an affidavit from defendant. The assistant State's Attorney requested defendant “be sworn today to those facts that are in * * * [trial counsel's] motion.” Trial counsel had no objection to defendant being “sworn in to the facts.” Consequently, defendant swore “the contents of the motion to be true and accurate to the best of [her] knowledge.” A suppression hearing was then held.
¶ 8 Trial counsel then presented his opening statement. Trial counsel asserted the motion raised two issues: (1) that defendant did not receive a complete set of Miranda warnings; and (2) that officers “overcame her desire not to talk about the case by threatening her [and] threatening to take her baby away from her.” Trial counsel noted defendant was pregnant at the time the interrogation occurred. He further asserted the officers threatened defendant with forcing her to deliver the baby in county jail in unsanitary conditions. The State presented no opening statement.
¶ 9 Thereafter, the State called its first and only witness, Lieutenant James Twohill of the Burbank police department. Twohill testified that on December 27, 2005, he was sergeant of Burbank investigations. At 12:53 p.m. that day, he and Lieutenant Tom Harold of the Evergreen Park police department conducted an interview of defendant. Twohill read defendant her Miranda rights from a preprinted card. Twohill further testified he did not inform defendant that she could stop the questioning at any time. Additionally, Twohill stated he did not raise his voice or yell at defendant and that he did not threaten defendant with losing her baby or tell defendant her baby would be born in jail in unsanitary conditions. Twohill testified defendant had no complaints regarding her treatment by police.
¶ 10 During Twohill's testimony, the State introduced into evidence defendant's December 27, 2005, videotaped interview. The State played a portion of the interview for the court wherein Twohill read defendant her Miranda rights. The videotape reflected that Twohill did not inform defendant that she could stop the questioning at any time. In addition, the videotape demonstrated defendant was not physically, psychologically, or mentally coerced and that the officers did not yell or raise their voices to defendant. Further, the officers did not make threats toward defendant's unborn child. At the beginning of the interview, the videotape demonstrates that defendant is asked, “Everything okay so far, you need a glass of water, you good?” To which she responds, “No, I'm okay.” Near the end of the interview, when asked if she had been treated well, defendant responds affirmatively. The officers then asked defendant, “You have no complaints about the way anybody treated you here?” In response, defendant slightly bowed her head, shaking it from side-to-side indicating she did not have any complaints.
¶ 11 On cross-examination Twohill testified that he first met defendant on December 26, 2005, and spoke with her “very briefly” at the police station. Defendant was not a suspect and, therefore, was not informed of her Miranda rights at that time. Later that day, defendant accompanied Twohill and other unidentified officers to locate and identify “J–Mo,” an individual who Twohill indicated was, at that time, a suspect in the matter. Defendant was in a van with the officers for “no more than an hour.” Afterwards, the officers dropped defendant off at a family member's home.
¶ 12 Twohill further testified on cross-examination that on December 27, 2005, he “received information” that defendant had “voluntarily arrived” at the police station. Twohill “went there immediately to conduct the interview.” Twohill, however, did not know exactly when defendant had arrived at the station. Twohill testified that Lieutenant Harold escorted defendant into the interview room, where Twohill was waiting outside. Twohill, Harold, and defendant walked into the interview room together, which is when the videotape begins. Prior to beginning the interview at 12:50 p.m., Twohill stated he had not spoken with defendant and neither had any other officers.
¶ 13 On redirect, Twohill testified that on December 27, 2005, he and Harold were at task force headquarters in Chicago Ridge when Harold received a telephone call that defendant was at the Evergreen Park police department. The two officers left immediately and arrived at the Evergreen Park police department “no more than 15 minutes” later. When they arrived at the Evergreen Park station, Harold went to get defendant who was “waiting in a report room away from the Detective Division.” Twohill further testified that the first time he spoke with defendant on December 27, 2005, was when he commenced defendant's interview.
¶ 14 On re-cross, Twohill testified he did not see defendant walk into the station and believed “she arrived [at the station] when Lieutenant Harold received a phone call.”
¶ 15 The State rested and defendant moved for a directed finding, which was denied by the trial court. The defense then rested without calling any witnesses. In closing arguments, defense counsel asserted that defendant did not receive “the final Miranda warning” and noted that the officers did not have defendant acknowledge each right individually. Defense counsel pointed out that the officers did not inform defendant that she did not have to answer further questions. Defense counsel further asserted that Twohill did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial