People v. Eubanks

• Decision Date: 14 July 2020
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3-18-0117
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antwoine Teddy EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (3d) 180117

159 N.E.3d 508

442 Ill.Dec. 329

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Antwoine Teddy EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-18-0117

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed July 14, 2020

PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant was charged with first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a) (2) (West 2010)) and aggravated battery with a firearm ( 720 ILCS 5/12-4.2(a)(1) (West 2010)). Approximately one year later, defendant provided a videotaped statement to detectives. Soon thereafter, he pled guilty to first degree murder. Defendant later filed several motions to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court granted. Defendant's case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, where defendant's statement was admitted into evidence. Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Defendant filed a postconviction petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress his videotaped statement pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(f) (eff. July 1, 2012). The petition proceeded to a third-stage evidentiary hearing, where the trial court denied it. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his postconviction petition because his videotaped statement was inadmissible at trial. We affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant was arrested on April 14, 2010, and charged with one count of first degree murder for killing Samuel Rush and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm for shooting Erik Childs. Defendant initially denied any involvement in the crimes.

¶ 4 On April 19, 2011, defendant participated in a videotaped interview with two Rock Island detectives, Gene Karzin and Tina Noe, along with his attorney, Daniel Dalton. Assistant State's Attorney Norma Kauzlerich was outside the room watching the interview and texting questions to Karzin. Defendant confessed that he and two other men, Pashanet Reed and Stephan Phelps, lured the victims to a specific location, where defendant shot them. After the defendant made his statement, Dalton left the room, presumably to speak with Kauzlerich, to "make sure we're good."

¶ 5 On May 11, 2011, defendant appeared in court to enter a guilty plea. The State indicated that the parties had reached a "negotiated disposition" pursuant to which the State recommended that defendant be sentenced to 35 years in prison for first degree murder and dismiss the aggravated battery with a firearm charge, provided that defendant "continues to truthfully cooperate and, if necessary, truthfully testify." The trial court entered judgment for first degree murder and dismissed the aggravated battery charge against defendant. The matter was continued for sentencing "pending the defendant's cooperation with the co-defendants' cases."

¶ 6 Defendant filed motions to withdraw his guilty plea on November 10, 2011, February 14, 2012, and March 27, 2012. On March 28, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the motions. At the hearing, the State indicated that it would stand by its offer in exchange for defendant's cooperation. The trial court allowed defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.

¶ 7 On May 15, 2012, defendant filed a motion to suppress his videotaped statement, alleging that it was "obtained in violation of [his] rights as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution." According to the motion, "the plea agreement reached by defendant and the State required defendant to plead guilty to the * * * First Degree Murder charge, provide a true statement as to his involvement in the murder, and testify if necessary, against the other co-defendants." In exchange, the State would recommend that defendant receive a 35-year prison sentence for first degree murder and dismiss the aggravated battery with a firearm charge. The motion further stated that "pursuant to his obligation under the bargain reached with the State, [defendant] provided a videotaped statement to law enforcement officials and attorneys from the Rock Island County State's Attorney[']s office." The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress.

¶ 8 Defendant's case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial. The stipulations established that on March 30, 2010, Rush and Childs were found shot inside a vehicle. Reed and Phelps were found fleeing from the scene in a dark green Lincoln.

¶ 9 Phelps told police that he was with defendant on March 30, 2010, and traded a gun with defendant that day. Phelps gave police the gun and ammunition defendant gave him. Reed told police that defendant shot Rush and Childs.

¶ 10 Officers located a cell phone at the scene of the shooting. Defendant drove to a store after the murder to obtain a new "SIM card" with the same cell phone number as the phone located at the scene.

¶ 11 Reed and Phelps would have testified that they drove around in a green Lincoln drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis with defendant on March 30, 2010. They went to defendant's brother's house, where defendant picked up a rental car. Phelps called Rush to set up a cannabis transaction. Upon meeting up, Rush exited his vehicle and walked toward the green Lincoln. Defendant then ran from the side of a house and started shooting into Rush's car. Rush ran toward his car, and defendant ran around the back of the car and shot Rush.

¶ 12 The State presented defendant's videotaped interview. The prosecutor stated that Noe and Karzin "interviewed the defendant pursuant to a proffer agreement." In the interview, Rush told detectives that he, Reed, and Phelps drove around on March 30, 2010, smoking cannabis and drinking. He, Reed and Phelps traveled to Rock Island, where Phelps was supposed to meet Rush. He parked his rental car in an alley. He exited his vehicle and ran between houses toward Rush's vehicle. He shot Childs three times. When he saw Rush run back toward the car, he ran around the back of the car and shot Rush three times. He, Reed, and Phelps fled the scene. Reed and Phelps were in the Lincoln, and he was in the rental car. He discovered that he lost his phone during the shooting, so he drove to an I-Wireless store in Davenport.

¶ 13 The trial court found defendant guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to 50 years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that his videotaped statement to police was inadmissible at trial. He also raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence, finding that we could not determine if defendant's videotaped statement was made pursuant to plea negotiations. People v. Eubanks , 2014 IL App (3d) 130021-U, ¶ 37, 2014 WL 6989885. We recommended that defendant raise the issue in a postconviction petition. Id.

¶ 14 Thereafter, defendant filed a postconviction petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress his videotaped statement pursuant to Rule 402(f). Defendant later filed an amended petition. The State filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition. The court denied the State's motion, finding that the amended petition potentially alleged a claim of deficient representation that was not harmless. The petition proceeded to a third-stage evidentiary hearing.

¶ 15 At the third-stage hearing, Dalton testified that the State approached him about defendant providing evidence against Reed and Phelps. According to Dalton, the State agreed to provide defendant with a 35-year prison sentence in exchange for a statement from defendant and defendant's "further cooperation." Dalton arranged for defendant to give a videotaped statement to Karzin and Noe on April 19, 2011. Dalton stated that defendant's videotaped statement "never would have been made but for that plea agreement." Dalton said he would not have allowed defendant to give a statement without a plea deal in place.

¶ 16 Defendant agreed with Dalton's testimony regarding the events surrounding the plea deal. Defendant testified that Dalton told him "the State was willing to give me a deal." According to defendant, "in order for me to get the deal, I would have to give a statement, a truthful statement, of my involvement in the case." The plea deal also required defendant to testify against his codefendants "if need be." Dalton told defendant that the State was offering him a sentence of 35 years before defendant made his statement. Defendant said he would not have made the videotaped statement if it had not been required by the plea deal.

¶ 17 The trial court issued an order finding that defendant's April 19, 2011, statement "was not part of the plea discussion, but rather the result of the plea agreement, and thus Supreme Court Rule 402 [(f)] was not violated." The court denied defendant's postconviction petition.

¶ 18 ANALYSIS

¶ 19 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his postconviction petition following the third-stage hearing because his videotaped statement was made during plea discussions and, therefore, was inadmissible at trial under Rule 402(f). He contends that the statement was a condition precedent to his plea agreement.

¶ 20 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) provides a method for a criminal defendant to assert that "in the proceedings which resulted in his or her conviction there was a substantial denial of his or her rights under the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Illinois or both." 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(1) (West 2018). "A proceeding under the Act is a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction." People v. Wrice , 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 47, 357 Ill.Dec. 33, 962 N.E.2d 934.

¶ 21 The Act provides a three-stage process for adjudicating postconviction petitions. People v. English , 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 23, 369 Ill.Dec. 744, 987 N.E.2d 371. After a third-stage hearing, where the trial court made factual and credibility determinations, the trial court's decision will not be reversed unless it is...