People v. Carter, No. 3–14–0196.

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtJustice CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Citation62 N.E.3d 267,407 Ill.Dec. 22
Docket NumberNo. 3–14–0196.
Decision Date25 July 2016
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Cornelius D. CARTER, Defendant–Appellant.

62 N.E.3d 267
407 Ill.Dec.
22

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Cornelius D. CARTER, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 3–14–0196.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion Filed July 25, 2016.
Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing Sept. 2, 2016.


62 N.E.3d 270

Michael J. Pelletier and Sean Conley, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, Ottawa, for appellant.

John L. McGehee, State's Attorney, Rock Island (Robert M. Hansen, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

407 Ill.Dec. 25

¶ 1 Defendant, Cornelius D. Carter, argues on appeal that his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm should be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present an excessive amount of other-crimes evidence related to an alleged escape attempt from the county jail. We affirm in part, vacate the DNA analysis fee and the fines improperly imposed by the circuit clerk, and remand for the trial court to modify its judgment on fine, fees, and costs in accordance with this order.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12–4.2(a)(1) (West 2010)). In October 2012, while incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, defendant requested a disposition of all pending Illinois charges through the interstate Agreement on Detainers statute (730 ILCS 5/3–8–9 (West 2012) ). The detainer documents listed another pending Illinois case in addition to the instant case.

¶ 4 The State filed a motion in limine requesting that the court deem evidence of defendant's alleged escape attempt from the county jail in July 2013 to be admissible at defendant's aggravated battery trial. Said evidence would include defendant's audiotaped phone calls from jail, physical evidence, testimony, and photographs. Defendant objected. Following a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court ruled that evidence of defendant's escape attempt was admissible. The court advised the State that it wanted “as little [evidence] as possible” regarding the escape attempt. The court added, “I want the case to be about the shooting, not about the escape.”

¶ 5 A jury trial was held. Kameron Angel testified that he had known defendant since he was 10 or 11 years old and they had been close friends. On the evening of August 30, 2010, Kameron was socializing with his brother, Granvil Angel, defendant, and several other people. Defendant was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, dark colored pants, and hospital gloves. Defendant had been wearing the hospital gloves all day, and Kameron did not think it was strange. Defendant showed Kameron a handgun that he had in the pocket of his hooded sweatshirt. Kameron asked if he could purchase the gun, and defendant said Kameron could purchase it after defendant was done with it. A few minutes later, defendant asked Kameron to go somewhere with him.

¶ 6 Kameron walked with defendant to a garage near a store called Jesse Mart. They entered the garage, and defendant told Kameron there was a gun under a dresser. The garage was dark so Kameron used his cell phone as a light. Kameron bent down to look for the gun, and

407 Ill.Dec. 26
62 N.E.3d 271

defendant shot him in the back of his neck and his back. Kameron fell to the ground. Defendant took Kameron's cell phone and called or texted someone with it. Defendant then shot Kameron three more times in the back and arm. Kameron lay down and did not move.

¶ 7 Defendant left the garage. After a minute or two, Kameron got up and jogged to Jesse Mart. The clerk at Jesse Mart called 911, and several police officers and an ambulance arrived. Kameron told the officers that defendant shot him. Kameron was taken to the hospital to be treated. While at the hospital, Kameron picked defendant out of a photographic lineup as the individual who shot him. Kameron was in the hospital for several days and continued to have back problems because a bullet was still in his spine.

¶ 8 Kameron did not have his cell phone after the shooting. Kameron did not send a text message to Granvil on the night of the shooting saying that he was going to Kia's house. Kia was the mother of Kameron's son.

¶ 9 Kameron spoke to Tresvour Robertson in jail approximately a year prior to trial, and Robertson told Kameron that defendant was paid to kill Kameron. Kameron and Granvil had obtained a pound of cannabis from Marcus Hampton and Robertson's cousin, T.J. Everett, prior to the shooting and decided not to pay for the cannabis.

¶ 10 Kameron acknowledged that he had previously pled guilty to the offense of “going armed with intent” for throwing a golf club at someone, for which he was on probation.

¶ 11 Granvil testified that he was Kameron's brother. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on the evening Kameron was shot, Granvil, Kameron, defendant, and several others were smoking cannabis together. Defendant asked Granvil to go somewhere with him. Granvil told defendant he did not feel like walking anywhere. Defendant asked Granvil a second time, and Granvil again refused. Defendant then asked Kameron, and Kameron agreed. Defendant and Kameron began walking toward Jesse Mart. Defendant was wearing black clothing and latex gloves.

¶ 12 At approximately 10:15 p.m., the police came to the house where Granvil and his friends were smoking. The police banged on the door and said someone had been shot. Granvil left and started walking because he had a “really bad feeling in the gut of [his] stomach.” While he was walking, Granvil received a text message from his father stating that Kameron had been shot. Around that time, Granvil also received a “weird text message” from Kameron's cell phone which said that Kameron was with Kia. Granvil could not remember if he received the text message from Kameron's phone before or after the text message from his father. Granvil later talked to Kia and learned that she had not spoken with or seen Kameron that night. Kameron later told Granvil that he did not send that text message.

¶ 13 After he received the text message from his father, Granvil saw a car driving down an alley and motioned for the car to stop. Granvil recognized the driver as Arletha Farmer and asked for a ride to the hospital. Granvil then noticed that defendant was in the backseat. Farmer agreed to give Granvil a ride, and Granvil got in the backseat with defendant. Granvil repeatedly asked defendant what happened to Kameron. Defendant said, “I don't know, I just ran.” Defendant was sweating profusely and smoking cigarettes. Defendant twice asked Farmer to pull over so he could get out, but she did not pull over. Defendant was wearing different clothes than he had worn earlier in the evening.

407 Ill.Dec. 27
62 N.E.3d 272

Specifically, defendant was wearing blue jeans and a white muscle shirt. When the car arrived at the hospital and Granvil got out, the car sped off.

¶ 14 Granvil testified that approximately one week before the shooting, Granvil and Kameron obtained one pound of cannabis, which was worth approximately $1000, from Everett, Robertson, and Hampton. Kameron and Granvil later discovered that the cannabis was bad and refused to pay for it. Everett, Hampton, and Robertson called Granvil a few days later after he refused to pay for the cannabis and told Granvil that they were going to kill him and Kameron. They said that the “hit [was] going to be so close that [he was] not going to see it coming.”

¶ 15 Farmer testified that she had known defendant for about five years. On the evening of the shooting, Farmer was driving around with a friend. At approximately 10:30 or 11 p.m., Farmer saw defendant walking down the street and gave him a ride. A few minutes later, Farmer saw Granvil. Farmer did not know Granvil, but she knew of him. Granvil asked for a ride to the hospital, and Farmer drove him to the hospital. Farmer heard defendant and Granvil greet each other when Granvil got into the car, but they did not talk much during the ride. Farmer dropped Granvil off at the hospital and drove away. Farmer did not recall telling a police officer that defendant told her someone had been shot when she picked him up.

¶ 16 Police Officer Greg Whitcomb testified that when he interviewed Farmer the day after the shooting, Farmer said that when she picked defendant up, he told her there had been a shooting.

¶ 17 Police officers who investigated the shooting testified that when they responded to the 911 call, Kameron told them defendant shot him in an abandoned garage. The officers observed bullet wounds on Kameron's neck and left arm. An officer later located the garage and found a pool of blood and what appeared to be bullets. Whitcomb testified that he showed Kameron a photographic lineup, and Kameron identified defendant as his shooter.

¶ 18 Robertson testified that he knew Everett and Hampton. Kameron and Granvil obtained approximately one pound of cannabis from Everett, who had received the cannabis from Robertson. Kameron and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • People v. Mullen, No. 1–15–2306
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 5, 2018
    ...rev'd on other grounds , 2016 IL 118674, 401 Ill.Dec. 630, 50 N.E.3d 1112. But see People v. Carter , 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶¶ 56–57, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267 (finding, contrary to the Fourth District cases, that the probation/court services assessment is a fine because the assessm......
  • People v. Warren, Appeal No. 3-15-0085.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 26, 2017
    ...levy fines, any fines imposed by the circuit clerk are void from their inception."); People v. Carter , 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶ 51, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267 ; see also Gutierrez , 2012 IL 111590, ¶ 14, 356 Ill.Dec. 752, 962 N.E.2d 437.¶ 34 The majority suggests—without explicitly h......
  • People v. Guerrero, Appeal No. 3-17-0786
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 7, 2018
    ...that the probation operations assessment is a fine subject to $5-per-day credit. People v. Carter , 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶¶ 55-56, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267. In doing so, we stated,"The probation operations assistance fee is assessed against all criminal defendants ‘upon a judgment......
  • People v. Maya, Appeal No. 3-15-0079
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 10, 2017
    ...such evidence will play any role in the jury's decision-making process. See also, e.g., People v. Carter, 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶ 39, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267 ("[E]vidence that defendant wished to escape from jail and acquired various items of contraband including hacksaw blades to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • People v. Mullen, No. 1–15–2306
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 5, 2018
    ...rev'd on other grounds , 2016 IL 118674, 401 Ill.Dec. 630, 50 N.E.3d 1112. But see People v. Carter , 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶¶ 56–57, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267 (finding, contrary to the Fourth District cases, that the probation/court services assessment is a fine because the assessm......
  • People v. Warren, Appeal No. 3-15-0085.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 26, 2017
    ...levy fines, any fines imposed by the circuit clerk are void from their inception."); People v. Carter , 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶ 51, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267 ; see also Gutierrez , 2012 IL 111590, ¶ 14, 356 Ill.Dec. 752, 962 N.E.2d 437.¶ 34 The majority suggests—without explicitly h......
  • People v. Guerrero, Appeal No. 3-17-0786
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 7, 2018
    ...that the probation operations assessment is a fine subject to $5-per-day credit. People v. Carter , 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶¶ 55-56, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267. In doing so, we stated,"The probation operations assistance fee is assessed against all criminal defendants ‘upon a judgment......
  • People v. Maya, Appeal No. 3-15-0079
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 10, 2017
    ...such evidence will play any role in the jury's decision-making process. See also, e.g., People v. Carter, 2016 IL App (3d) 140196, ¶ 39, 407 Ill.Dec. 22, 62 N.E.3d 267 ("[E]vidence that defendant wished to escape from jail and acquired various items of contraband including hacksaw blades to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT