People v. Eubanks

• Decision Date: 10 December 2014
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3-13-0021
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTWOINE EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2014 IL App (3d) 130021-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTWOINE EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-13-0021

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2014

December 10, 2014

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 the 14th Judicial Circuit, Rock Island County, Illinois,

Circuit No. 10-CF-298

Honorable Frank R. Fuhr, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Carter and O'Brien concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress is affirmed on the grounds presented to the trial court. The issue of whether defendant's confession, provided less than one month before defendant entered his guilty plea, was plea-related and inadmissible according to Supreme Court Rule 402(f) requires consideration of matters outside of this record and should be addressed by the trial court in a postconviction petition.

¶ 2 The State charged defendant, Antwoine Eubanks, with first-degree murder for the shooting death of Sam Rush and aggravated battery with a firearm for the shooting of Erik Childs in March 2010. During his second interview with law enforcement officials that tookplace in April 2011, defendant recanted his initial statement denying involvement and confessed to shooting the victims. A few weeks later, in May 2011, defendant appeared before the court and entered a plea of guilty to one count of first-degree murder, which the court accepted. The State dismissed other charges pursuant to the agreement, which were never reinstated. The terms of the plea agreement required the State to dismiss certain charges and to recommend a sentence of 35 years' incarceration for first-degree murder, pending defendant's cooperation in the cases against two other participants in the shootings. Eventually, defendant rejected the negotiated agreement and withdrew his guilty plea.

¶ 3 For purposes of the impending trial, the judge refused to suppress defendant's confession on the contractual grounds raised by the defense. After a stipulated bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced defendant to 50 years' incarceration. Defendant appeals, now arguing the court should have suppressed his confession because his statement was plea-related and inadmissible pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402(f). We affirm.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The State charged defendant Antwoine Eubanks with one count of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Sam Rush and one count for the aggravated battery of Erik Childs with a firearm based on an incident that occurred on March 30, 2010. Following his arrest on April 14, 2010, defendant denied any involvement in the shootings of Rush and Childs when interviewed by detectives.

¶ 6 On April 19, 2011, detectives Gene Karzin and Tina Noe interviewed defendant with his attorney present. During the interview, detective Karzin informed defendant that a prosecuting attorney was listening to the interview and simultaneously texting him with questions to askdefendant. Defendant confessed that he, Pashanet Reed, and Stephon Phelps¹ lured the victims to a specific location where defendant shot both Rush and Childs.² Just before the recording ends, defendant's attorney stated he was going to step out of the room to "make sure we're good."

¶ 7 On May 11, 2011, defendant appeared, with counsel, before the court for the purpose of entering a guilty plea. The prosecutor indicated the parties had reached a "negotiated disposition." Provided defendant "continues to truthfully cooperate and, if necessary, truthfully testify," the State agreed to recommend to the court that defendant should be sentenced to 35 years' incarceration for first-degree murder, followed by a mandatory supervised release (MSR) period. The court advised defendant that the first-degree murder charge carried a potential term of incarceration between 20 and 60 years but, if extendable, defendant faced 20 years to life in prison. The court told defendant that he would "get what [he] bargained for" as long as he complied with the agreement. The State provided a factual basis for the plea and, after finding defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered the guilty plea, the court entered judgment for first-degree murder and dismissed, with leave to reinstate the aggravated battery with a firearm charge, on the motion of the State. Pursuant to the State's request, the court continued the matter for sentencing "pending the defendant's cooperation with the co-defendants' cases."

¶ 8 On November 10, 2011, defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea and, thereafter, filed another motion to withdraw his guilty plea on February 14, 2012. On March 27, 2012, defense counsel filed an amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that, due to the mandatory 25-year enhancement for the use of a firearm during the murder of Rush,defendant's negotiated sentence of 35 years was void for being below the statutory 45-year minimum.

¶ 9 On March 28, 2012, during the hearing on defendant's amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the following discussion occurred:

"THE COURT: *** It is my understanding and my recollection that they offered you 35 actual years in prison if you cooperated, for lack of a better word.

THE DEFENDANT: Right.

THE COURT: Okay? Not 60, not anything enhanced. Basically, the 35 would have been because they would have gone back and amended the charge to delete the issue of the firearm, because I didn't admonish you about that because that was not part of the plea agreement. The plea agreement was 35 actual years. You understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.

***

MS. KAUZLARICH [State's Attorney]: *** The State offered the 35 years to [defendant] in exchange for his truthful cooperation, and in speaking to the victim's family, that was the agreement, 35 years.

*** If [defendant is] allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, I can still use his taped statement that he gave to me, sir, against him.

And secondly, if he is convicted, sir, the mandatory minimum is 45 years in prison. That's ten more years than what I offered at the 35.

***

THE COURT: Can I ask why [it's still your desire to withdraw this plea]?

THE DEFENDANT: Because I wouldn't have took it in the first place if I knew I was - if it was only 35 years. I wouldn't even took it. Only reason I took it is my lawyer told me to take it. That's the only reason.

THE COURT: What - That's nonsense. *** And you agreed to the factual basis, and I admonished you, just as I do everybody else, and you understood exactly what was going on.

***

So - So that - So sitting there and saying you took something only because your attorney... Because, quite frankly, that's a hell of a deal. You shot this guy. You shot the guy. It's not - It's not - You agreed to the factual basis. You shot the man. This wasn't a case where you were hiding in the - you hid around the bush, and somebody else did it. The factual basis said you shot him.

So to sit there and tell me that you took a plea only because your attorney told you to, and the fact that, quite frankly, he saved you at least ten years prison, at least ten. Because that's - 45 is if you give get the minimum if you're convicted. You understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.

***

THE COURT: Fine - Fine. It's withdrawn. Good luck. *** Your plea is withdrawn."

The court allowed defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and continued the matter for a pretrial hearing. Defendant filed a motion requesting substitution of Judge Meersman on April 17, 2012, and the matter was subsequently transferred to Judge Fuhr.

¶ 10 On May 15, 2012, defendant filed a motion to suppress statements, arguing 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 Attorneys office after [defendant] had entered an open guilty plea on May 11, 2011, as to his involvement in the murder." Defendant argued that the trial court did not have the authority to accept the guilty plea because the 35-year sentence was void since it fell below the statutory minimum of 45 years, with the firearm enhancement. Defendant argued ultimately it would be "legally impossible" for him to "enjoy the benefit of the sentence promised to him." Consequently, based on the law of contracts, the State should not be allowed to receive its benefit of the bargain (the use of the April 19, 2011, videotaped confession).

¶ 11 On June 21, 2012, the court allowed the parties to argue their positions concerning defendant's motion to suppress his 2011 confession. The court requested a copy of the transcript from the withdrawal of defendant's guilty plea hearing and took the matter under advisement.

¶ 12 On June 22, 2012, the court entered a written "Opinion & Order," denying defendant's request to suppress his recorded statements. The court found that "no final judgment or sentence was imposed at the time of the plea." The court further stated,

"Judge Meersman made it clear to the Defendant prior to granting his motion to withdraw his plea that the agreement between the parties was that after cooperating, the State would agree to the withdrawal of this plea and allow the Defendant to plead to an amended count that eliminated the allegation of the useof a firearm ***. This procedure would then allow him to be sentenced to his agreed to thirty-five (35) years in prison. From the record, it is clear that it is not the State that has been unable or unwilling to fulfill [its] end of the bargain, but the Defendant by refusing to cooperate and withdrawing his guilty plea. The State and Judge Meersman made it clear to the Defendant at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea what the consequences would be if he

...