People v. Catron
| Decision Date | 19 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-11-1071,NO. 4-11-1116,4-11-1071,4-11-1116 |
| Citation | 2013 IL App (4th) 111071 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DENNIS G. CATRON, 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).
¶ 1 Held: This court has jurisdiction where defendant's request for a hearing under section 115-4.1(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 was timely and his late notice of appeal included his convictions and sentences as judgments being appealed.
¶ 2 The notice for defendant's May 1994 trial in absentia complied with section 115-4.1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 because the State's Attorney could fulfill the circuit clerk's obligation as the State's Attorney is the legal advisor of the circuit clerk.
¶ 3 The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress a manila folder where the evidence at the suppression hearing indicated the folder was laying in plain view on a dresser and the searched-for videotapes could have been in, under, or around the folder.
¶ 4 The trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Mary Buetow's testimony, including hearsay statements by the victim naming defendant as the abuser.
¶ 5 In May 1994, defendant was tried in absentia on the charges in two separate cases, and the jury found him guilty of two counts of criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse in case No. 93-CF-405 (hereinafter case 405) and aggravated criminal sexual assault and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in case No. 91-CF-213 (hereinafter case 213). In August 1994, the Vermilion County circuit court sentenced defendant in absentia to a 12-year prison term for criminal sexual assault in case 405 to run concurrent to the consecutive prison terms in case 213 of 6 years for one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, 25 years for aggravated criminal sexual assault, and 5 years for the second count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse.
¶ 6 In July 2011, defendant appeared in Vermilion County circuit court. In September 2011, defendant requested a hearing under section 115-4.1(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Procedure Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 115-4.1(e)), claiming his failure to appear at his trial and sentencing hearing was not his fault and seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, a sentencing hearing. Over the State's objection, the court held a section 115-4.1(e) hearing in November 2011 and denied defendant's request for a new trial or sentencing hearing.
¶ 7 Defendant appeals, asserting (1) he is entitled to a new trial because the notice of his trial in absentia was not sent by the circuit clerk as required by section 115-4.1(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 115-4.1(a)); (2) the trial court erred by refusing to suppress a manila folder seized from defendant's residence; and (3) the court erred by allowing (a) Dr. Mary Buetow to testify, or in the alternative, (b) Dr. Buetow's hearsay testimony about statements made by the victim, S.A., that were unrelated to her diagnosis or treatment ofS.A. We affirm.
¶ 9 A. Champaign County Charges (No. 4-11-1116)
¶ 10 Case 405 was originally brought in Champaign County and was docketed case No. 91-CF-1184. In July 1991, a grand jury indicted defendant with the following: one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-16(c)(1)(i)) of M.H., one count of criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-15(a)(2)) of S.A., and one count of criminal sexual assault (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-13(a)(2)) of S.A. The aggravated-criminal-sexual-abuse count was tried separately in March 1992, and a jury found defendant not guilty of that charge. In April 1992, a grand jury indicted defendant with a second count of criminal sexual assault (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-13(a)(4)) of S.A. The charges against defendant with S.A. as the victim were all based on defendant's actions between November 1990 and June 24, 1991.
¶ 11 In August 1992, the parties entered into an agreement, under which a stipulated bench trial on a new count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-16(d)) of S.A would be held, the other counts would be dismissed, and defendant would receive a prison term of five years. However, the trial court denied the parties' request for a stipulated bench trial.
¶ 12 On August 19, 1992, the State filed a motion to consolidate the Champaign County case with defendant's pending case in Vermilion County and to have all of the charges tried in Vermilion County. At an August 19, 1992, hearing, defendant did not object to the State's motion, and the Champaign County circuit court granted the motion. When the case wastransferred to Vermilion County, it became Vermilion County case No. 93-CF-405.
¶ 13 B. Vermilion County Charges (No. 4-11-1071)
¶ 14 In case 213, the State charged defendant by information with one count of aggravated criminal sexual assault (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-14(b)(1)) and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 12-16(d)). S.A. was the victim in all of the charges. The aggravated-criminal-sexual-assault charge was based on defendant's alleged actions between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1990. One count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse was based on defendant's alleged actions between June 24 and 25, 1991, and the other one was based on defendant's alleged actions between January 1, 1991, and June 23, 1991. The information was amended twice but the charges remained the same.
¶ 15 In September 1991, defendant filed a motion to suppress, seeking to suppress a list of items the police seized from defendant's residence because they were beyond the scope of the search warrant. A manila folder was not included on the list. On July 24, 1992, defendant was present in court (for the last time before his July 2011 return), and his trial was set for September 22, 1992. Defendant did not appear on September 22, 1992, and the court continued the case and issued a warrant for his arrest. On December 8, 1992, defendant again failed to appear for his jury trial, and the matter was continued. On June 14, 1993, defendant again failed to appear, and the case was continued on the State's motion. In September 1993, the State filed a notice of intent to present evidence under section 115-10 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 115-10) of S.A.'s out-of-court statements to several individuals, including Dr. Buetow.
¶ 16 On October 4, 1993, the trial court called case 213 for a jury trial, and defendantagain failed to appear. Defense counsel filed a motion to strike the trial based on the State's noncompliance with section 115-4.1(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, ¶ 115-4.1(a)); specifically, the State failed to mail the notice of the trial by certified mail. The court granted defense counsel's motion. The court also granted the State's motion to consolidate case 213 with case 405. Last, the court set a jury trial in both cases for January 10, 1994.
¶ 18 Then Vermilion County circuit court judge Rita Garman presided over the joint proceedings. In January 1994, defense counsel filed three motions in limine and an objection to the State's presentation of evidence under section 115-10 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On January 12, 1994, the trial court held a hearing on the motions in limine, the motion to suppress, and the objection to section 115-10 evidence. The court heard testimony on the motion to suppress and the section 115-10 evidence. As to the motion to suppress, the court granted the motion in part, suppressing the following: (1) a jar of Vasoline, (2) condoms, (3) two telephone bills, and (4) a cassette tape. The court allowed the State's section 115-10 testimony as to statements S.A. made about crimes committed against him before his thirteenth birthday. Further, defense counsel objected to the jury trial without defendant, asserting the State had failed to present substantial evidence that it was entitled to try defendant in absentia. The court disagreed, finding the State had met the statutory requirements. The court set defendant's trial for January 19, 1994.
¶ 19 On January 19, 1994, defense counsel filed (1) a motion for change of venue; (2) a motion to reconsider the ruling on the motion to suppress; (3) a supplemental motion to suppressthat sought to suppress the manila folder; (4) two additional motions in limine; and (5) a motion to strike the January 19, 1994, trial date because the State failed to send defendant notice of it. The trial court granted the motion to strike the January 19, 1994, trial date and reset the trial for February 22, 1994.
¶ 20 On February 14, 1994, the trial court held a motions hearing and heard evidence on the motion to reconsider the original motion to suppress and the supplemental motion to suppress. The evidence presented at the hearing relevant to the issues on appeal is set forth in the analysis section. On reconsideration, the court suppressed a magazine and playing cards. As to the supplemental motion, the court denied it, finding the officers had a right to examine the manila folder as it was in plain view and "[t]hey were looking for videotape, video, photographs."
¶ 21 On defendant's motion, the trial court struck the February 22, 1994, trial date because the envelope containing the State's trial notice was addressed to defendant's brother. The court then set defendant's trial for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial