People v. Dudley

• Decision Date: 18 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1-15-2039,1-15-2039
• Citation: 2018 IL App (1st) 152039 -U
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LELAND DUDLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2018 IL App (1st) 152039-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LELAND DUDLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-15-2039

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT Second Division

September 18, 2018

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. 12 CR 9682(02)

The Honorable James B. Linn, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE LAVINdelivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice FitzgeraldSmith and Justice Howse concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1Held: Defendant's conviction for first degree felony murder is affirmed over defendant's contention that his co-offender's death was not a foreseeable consequence of his burglary offense.Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery is also affirmed over his contention that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly caused bodily harm to Officer Papin.Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the Chicago Police Department's general order regarding the use of force against a vehicle.Finally, defendant's forfeited claims are not subject to plain error relief because the evidence in this case was not closely balanced.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Leland Dudley, was found guilty of first degree felony murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3)(West 2012)), aggravated battery to a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4)(West 2012)), burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a)(West 2012)), and possession of a stolen motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1)(West 2012)).Defendant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms, which included 25 years for his first degree felony murder conviction, 6 years for his aggravated battery conviction and 6 years for his possession of a stolen motor vehicle conviction.

¶ 3 In this direct appeal, defendant argues he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder because the death of his co-offender was an unforeseeable consequence of his burglary offense.In addition, defendant argues he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated battery because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly caused bodily harm to Officer Papin.Third, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the Chicago Police Department's (CPD) general order regarding the use of force against a vehicle.Last, defendant posits several forfeited claims on appeal, which he argues may be reviewed under the plain error doctrine.Namely, defendant argues that (1)the trial court violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b)(Ill.S. Ct. R. 431(b)(eff. July 1, 2012)), during voir dire; (2)the trial court erred in giving Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction, Criminal, No. 7.15(2012); and (3)the State made improper statements and misstated the law during closing argument.We affirm.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5Defendant's convictions arose out of the commission of a burglary, after one of defendant's co-offenders, David Strong, was killed during their attempt to escape from the police.Co-defendantJohn Givens participated in the same burglary commission and was alsoconvicted of first degree felony murder, aggravated battery to a peace officer, burglary and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.Defendant and co-defendant were tried jointly by a jury.

¶ 6 Briefly stated, the evidence at trial generally showed that around midnight on April 29, 2012, defendant, co-defendant and Strong burglarized an electronics store.Mike's Electronics, the store, owned by Miguel Gutierrez, sold car stereo equipment and was located at 2459 South Western Avenue.At the time of the burglary, the store consisted of a small showroom on the first floor, an attached garage where merchandise could be installed into vehicles, and an apartment on the second floor, which was occupied by Sergio Hernandez.

¶ 7 At trial, Hernandez testified that around midnight on the night of the incident, he was asleep in his apartment when he was awoken by some "thumping" noises and voices coming from the store below.Hernandez called the police, who arrived at the scene "less than a minute" later.Hernandez further testified that when he went downstairs to open the door for the police, he noticed that one of the store's windows was broken.After looking through the window, Hernandez saw three men getting into Gutierrez's minivan inside the store's attached garage.

¶ 8 Hernandez testified that the police officers continuously announced their presence, while trying to open the store's interior door to the garage that had been barricaded shut.Hernandez then saw the three men reverse Gutierrez's van and break through the closed garage door.Hernandez testified that several police officers, who were outside the garage door, began shooting at the van after it hit a police officer.After crashing into Hernandez's truck parked outside, the van came to a stop.

¶ 9 Officer Mendez testified that when he approached the van after it stopped, he saw that the gearshift was still in drive.Officer Curry testified that, after observing that all three men had been shot, he called two ambulances to the scene.Defendant, who was in the driver's seat, hadbeen shot in the head, shoulders and back.Co-defendant, who was sitting in the rear passenger's seat, had been shot in the arm, legs, chest and neck.Strong, who was sitting in the front passenger's seat, had been shot in the head, chest, arms and legs, and was pronounced dead at the scene.

¶ 10 Gutierrez testified that on the date of the incident, 11 security cameras, located throughout the store and the garage, including the exterior, were currently installed and active.The surveillance footage shown to the jury generally reflected the above-stated events.Specifically, it showed that defendant, co-defendant and Strong took merchandise from the showroom and put it inside Gutierrez's minivan in the garage.The video footage also showed that while the men were taking the merchandise, lights flashed inside the showroom from outside the store, apparently by the police.Subsequently, one of the men hid behind the store's equipment, while the two other men ran from the showroom to the garage.Ultimately, defendant, co-defendant and Strong were inside the garage, attempting to open the garage door.The video footage showed that a police officer approached the garage door outside, and further showed that lights flashed inside the garage.Immediately thereafter, one of the men hid.Officer Lopez testified that, after unsuccessfully trying to open the interior door to the garage, he and Officer Gonzalez kicked a small hole through that door, while continuously yelling, "Chicago police officers, come out, you're surrounded, just come out."Eventually, defendant, co-defendant and Strong got into the van and reversed it through the garage door, where they were met by the police waiting outside.

¶ 11 Officer Papin testified that he was standing directly in front of the garage door when the van crashed through it, but that he had no time to move out of the way.The rear driver's side of the van struck Officer Papin's left hip.Additionally, Officers Lopez, Pratscher, Curry andMendez all testified that the van's driver made an "up and down" motion with his right arm, "motioning up by where the gearshift area was," and that the van lurched forward towards the other officers.Officer Lopez added that the van was moving at a high rate of speed.Officer Lopez, believing, albeit incorrectly, that he saw an officer "roll underneath the wheels of [the van]," shot at the van's driver six times to prevent the van from moving forward.Officer Pratscher similarly testified that he was standing to the right of the garage when the van crashed through the door and hit Officer Papin.Believing that Officer Papin was trapped under the van, Officer Pratscher shot at the van's driver 11 times to stop the van from moving.Officer Curry testified that he also saw the van strike Officer Papin and shot at it to stop it from moving.According to Officer Mendez, he attempted to fire his weapon to stop the van, but his weapon malfunctioned.

¶ 12 Strong's autopsy revealed he had been shot nine times, and the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds, in the manner of homicide.The trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed finding and the defense rested without presenting any evidence.The jury found defendant guilty of first degree felony murder predicated on his burglary offense, aggravated battery to a peace officer, burglary and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.The trial court merged defendant's burglary conviction into his felony murder conviction.Subsequently, the trial court denied defendant's motion for a new trial and sentenced defendant to 25 years imprisonment for felony murder, 6 years for aggravated battery and 6 years for possession of a stolen motor vehicle.The trial court also denied defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence.Defendant now appeals.

¶ 13 ANALYSIS

¶ 14 I. First Degree Felony Murder¶ 15 In this direct appeal, defendant contests only his convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated battery.First, he argues that his felony murder conviction should be reversed because he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Specifically, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Strong's death was a direct and foreseeable consequence of his burglary offense because it was directly attributable to the police shooting.

¶ 16 When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we ask whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.People v. Mefford, 2015 IL App (4th) 130471, ¶ 45.In...