People v. Eppinger
Decision Date | 22 February 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 114121.,114121. |
Citation | 2013 IL 114121,368 Ill.Dec. 529,984 N.E.2d 475 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Dominick EPPINGER, Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lisa Madigan, Atty. Gen., Springfield, IL, Jerry Brady, State's Atty., Peoria, IL, Michael A. Scodro, Sol. Gen., Michael M. Glick, Retha Stotts, Erica Seyburn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, IL, Patrick Delfino, Terry A. Mertel, Robert M. Hansen, Office of the State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, IL, for the People.
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defender, Fletcher P. Hamill, Asst. Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, IL, for appellee.
[368 Ill.Dec. 530]¶ 1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Peoria County, defendant Dominick Eppinger was found guilty of attempted murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, two counts of armed robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and was sentenced to 95 years' imprisonment. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial. 2012 IL App (3d) 100577–U, 2012 WL 6977909. The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court violated section 115–4.1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115–4.1(a) (West 2010)) (sometimes referred to as the trial in absentia statute) when, following the refusal of defendant pro se to leave his holding cell and participate in his trial, the court conducted voir dire without first appointing counsel to represent defendant.
¶ 2 For the reasons discussed below, we hold that section 115–4.1(a) of the Code is inapplicable under the facts of this case, and thus the trial court did not violate the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.
¶ 4 On December 9, 2008, the Peoria County grand jury entered a multicount indictment against defendant in connection with an armed robbery earlier that month during which one of the victims was shot multiple times, sustaining permanent injuries. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and the trial court appointed the public defender to represent him. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress defendant's oral statements to police, including a videotaped statement in which defendant admitted his participation in the armed robbery and shooting. The jury trial, originally set for March 9, 2009, was continued to June 8, 2009. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defense counsel's suppression motion. Defendant thereafter requested the appointment of a different public defender, who would keep him better informed and represent him “a little bit better.” Defense counsel stated that communication with her client had “broken down.” The trial court granted the request for appointment of new counsel and continued the trial date to August 24, 2009.
¶ 5 Defendant's new public defender filed a motion to suppress the identification of defendant during a photographic lineup. Before that motion could be heard, on August 18, 2009, six days before trial, defendant requested that he be allowed to proceed pro se. Defendant stated that he felt he could defend himself “better than the public defender can.” After admonishing defendant about the difficulties of self-representation and the possible penalties he faced, the trial court granted defendant's request, finding defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. On defendant's motion, the jury trial was continued to October 19, 2009.
¶ 6 On September 11, 2009, the case was up for review and tender of discovery to defendant. The court noted, on the record, that defendant was “creating quite a ruckus in the bullpen” and that the court could hear defendant pounding. The court later cautioned defendant that although he had a right to represent himself, if he disrupted the proceedings, he could be removed, and the trial would proceed without him.
¶ 7 Defendant elected not to proceed on the motion to suppress identification that his former public defender filed, and instead filed a series of pro se motions challenging the photographic lineup. Of necessity, the trial date was continued to January 11, 2010. Following an evidentiary hearing on December 10, 2009, the trial court denied defendant's motions. As to the January 11, 2010, trial, upon questioning by the trial court, defendant stated several times that he was ready for trial. Defendant further stated that he would not be calling any witnesses and a pretrial conference was unnecessary.
¶ 8 On December 12, 2009, defendant sent a letter to the trial judge requesting, inter alia, appointment of standby counsel. At a hearing five days later, defendant indicated his continued desire to represent himself at trial, and that he was requesting standby counsel to ensure he would follow the correct procedure and that none of his rights would be violated. The trial court denied defendant's request. Defendant again indicated he was ready for trial.
¶ 9 On December 26, 2009, defendant wrote a letter to the trial judge regarding a discovery matter which the court took up on January 5, 2010. At that time, the court also covered the particulars of how the trial would proceed, advising defendant that jury selection would begin the afternoon of January 11, 2010. Defendant agreed with the trial court that the jury would be told that counsel was available to defendant, and defendant chose to represent himself. Defendant also agreed to make a list of questions he would like the jurors to be asked.
¶ 10 Six days later, on the morning of trial, defendant changed course. Defendant advised the court that he no longer wished to represent himself and requested appointment of counsel. The State objected, arguing that defendant's request was simply a delay tactic. Defendant interjected: The trial court agreed with the State that defendant's request for appointment of counsel was made for the purpose of delay and denied that request. The court addressed defendant:
The following colloquy then took place:
When the court reconvened at 1:17 p.m., defendant was not present. The record reflects that prior to the start of jury selection, the following exchange occurred:
So with that in mind then, Miss Hoos [assistant State's Attorney], ready to proceed?
¶ 11 The court then proceeded with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Shafer
......Because the purpose of the plain-error doctrine is to decide whether to "by-pass normal rules of forfeiture" ( People v. Eppinger , 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 18, 368 Ill.Dec. 529, 984 N.E.2d 475 ) and because, 172 N.E.3d 590 under Almond , Shafer's due-process claim "is not ......
-
People v. Hughes
...rights * * * although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.’ ” People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 18, 368 Ill.Dec. 529, 984 N.E.2d 475 (quoting Ill. S.Ct. R. 615(a)). Plain error review applies in two circumstances: (i) when “a clear or obvious error occurred and the......
-
People v. Tolliver
......570, 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009). Obviously, if no error occurred, there can be no plain error, and we must honor the procedural bar. People v. Eppinger , 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19, 368 Ill.Dec. 529, 984 N.E.2d 475. Whether an error occurred requires that we conduct a substantive review of the issue. ......
-
People v. Parker
...the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence." People v. Eppinger , 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 18, 368 Ill.Dec. 529, 984 N.E.2d 475. We first determine whether an error occurred at all. Id. ¶ 19. ¶ 47 A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to a trial ......