People v. Figueroa

Decision Date27 February 2020
Docket NumberNo. 2-16-0650,2-16-0650
Citation441 Ill.Dec. 384,156 N.E.3d 1133,2020 IL App (2d) 160650
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Yasemin Eken, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Tricia L. Smith, State's Attorney, of Belvidere (Patrick Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and Stephanie Hoit Lee, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a trial in the circuit court of Boone County, a jury found defendant, Ricardo Figueroa, guilty of three counts of first-degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1)-(3) (West 2012)), two counts of attempted first-degree murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.8(a)(1) (West 2012)), and mob action ( 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a)(1) (West 2012)). The jury further found that defendant committed the offenses of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder while armed with a firearm. The court sentenced defendant on five of the seven counts to an aggregate of 60 years in prison. Defendant appeals. For the reasons that follow, we reverse defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967), we reduce that conviction to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(2), (3)(C) (West 2012)), and we remand the matter to the trial court for sentencing on that offense. We affirm the court's judgment in all other respects.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State's theory of the case is that the shooting resulting in defendant's convictions was precipitated by a gang rivalry between the Sureño 13s and the Latin Kings. Giovanni Galicia, Jesus Casas, and Fermin Estrada were all members of the Sureño 13 street gang. Around midnight on November 29, 2013, going into the early morning hours of November 30, they arrived together at Estrada's girlfriend's apartment in an area of Belvidere known as "Little Mexico." Galicia was in the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Impala, Casas sat in the front passenger seat, and Estrada sat in the back behind Casas. A Lincoln Navigator arrived on the scene. Two armed men exited the Navigator. One of them approached the driver's side of the Impala, and the other approached the passenger side. Casas saw the man on the passenger side tap on the window with a revolver, whereas Estrada saw that man tap on the window with his hand. The man on the driver's side opened fire repeatedly on the vehicle, killing Galicia. Neither Casas nor Estrada was injured. The suspects returned to the Navigator and left the scene.

¶ 4 Shortly after the shooting, a police officer saw a Navigator driving in the direction that he believed the perpetrators might be traveling. When the officer began following the Navigator, the driver of the Navigator, Ricardo Garcia, led him on a high-speed chase through Boone and Winnebago Counties. The Navigator eventually stopped in Rockford after sustaining damage during the pursuit. The occupants of the Navigator fled on foot. Police officers arrested Garcia, Cheyanne Patton, and defendant in a nearby field. Anthony Perez was arrested later, after the police had an opportunity to interview the other suspects and the witnesses.1 Inside the Navigator, officers found certain incriminating evidence, including a .40-caliber Glock 22 handgun that was later determined to be the murder weapon. The police also noticed a revolver lying in the street by the Navigator.

¶ 5 Several hours after the shooting, two detectives interviewed defendant. The interview was videotaped. The video was played for the jury in its entirety, except for (1) portions where defendant was alone in the interview room and (2) the very end of the video, when they discussed charges and bond. Defendant provided conflicting accounts of his whereabouts and actions that evening. In his initial accounts, he claimed that he did not know why a police officer attempted to stop Garcia's Navigator or why Garcia would not pull over in response to the officer's attempt to stop him. Defendant also said that, to his knowledge, only Garcia and Patton were in the Navigator with him.

¶ 6 Defendant changed his story amidst the detectives' questioning. He divulged more information and began to implicate himself. For example, he told the police that Perez was a fourth occupant of the Navigator and that the group drove to Little Mexico to "go see who's out there." Defendant at one point claimed that Perez got out of the Navigator in Little Mexico while Garcia, Patton, and defendant drove around the area. Defendant's understanding was that, if Perez saw somebody, defendant would "jump out and just whoop their ass, whatever." After Perez exited the vehicle, however, defendant heard multiple "pops." According to defendant, Perez got back in the Navigator and would not tell the others what had happened.

¶ 7 Defendant continued to change his story in ways that increasingly incriminated himself. In the next iteration of his story, he said that he knew that Little Mexico was where the Sureños hung out. He admitted that he got out of the Navigator and went up to the passenger side of a parked car "for a second." He said that he knocked on the window of that car with his hand and twice asked, "Who is you?" As he walked back to the Navigator, he heard "pops." Thinking that "they" were shooting at "us," he ran back to the Navigator. When the Navigator reached a stop sign, Perez got in the Navigator but would not tell the others what happened. Defendant said that he did not know if Perez was armed.

¶ 8 Defendant later incriminated himself even further. He testified that his group was at Mallek Sanchez's house that night and left to get beer. They were driving around and were mad because Sureños members had shot up Sanchez's house multiple times in recent months. They decided to go to Little Mexico. Perez suggested that he and defendant should get out on foot to "see who we can see." Defendant acknowledged that he had a revolver with him, which "was supposed to be" full of rounds. He told the detectives, however, that he did not intend to use the revolver. According to defendant, he was instead thinking that he and Perez would see if anybody was outside and, if so, they would "box" them (i.e. , a fistfight). Defendant explained that he and Perez exited the Navigator on foot and walked up to a car. Defendant went to the passenger side, and Perez went to the driver's side. Defendant knocked and asked the occupants of the car either "What you is?" or "Who is you?" Someone in the car waived his hands, as if to say, "I'm not nothing." Defendant started to walk away from the car. The car then went into reverse, and defendant heard 10 to 15 "pops." He assumed that Perez did the shooting. Defendant and Perez took off running. Defendant suspected that Perez had hit somebody or killed somebody. They got into the Navigator and went toward Rockford. A police officer then located the Navigator, and a chase ensued.

¶ 9 After questioning defendant, the detectives left the room, and defendant had an opportunity to sleep. The detectives returned and asked defendant if there was anything that they had talked about that he would like to change. Defendant responded that he had told them "damned near everything" that he knew. In response to further questioning, he clarified that only he and Perez had guns in the Navigator. He said that he first saw Perez's gun when they were getting out of the Navigator in Little Mexico. When questioned about the involvement of Garcia and Patton, defendant explained that everybody in his group had "some type of animosity" and resentment for Sanchez's house getting shot up. Defendant denied, however, that they were angry when they left for Little Mexico. He agreed with one of the detectives that his train of thought was that he would "whoop somebody's ass." He denied that he intended to shoot anybody or that there was a "plan," other than to see who was out. He said that he brought his gun in the Navigator as a precaution.

¶ 10 After defendant had another opportunity to sleep, he told the detectives that "everybody knew" that Perez had a gun. Defendant assumed that the other occupants of the Navigator knew that defendant had one as well. Defendant said that their "plan" that night was "to go to the gas station, and on our way to the gas station, we were going to go by Little Mexico." A detective then asked defendant, "And the point of that was to see who was out?" Defendant responded, "To see who was out." The detective added, "To see what kind of shit you could get into?" Defendant responded, "basically."

¶ 11 The State presented 21 witnesses at trial. As defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him (apart from his arguments pertaining to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member, which we will discuss separately in the analysis section), it will suffice to mention a few particularly important witnesses. Sergeant David Dammon of the Belvidere Police Department testified as an expert in street gangs. He explained that there was a rivalry between the Sureño 13s and the Latin Kings in Belvidere. He identified the victims of the shooting as members of the Sureño 13s, and he identified defendant, Perez, Garcia, and Patton as members of the Latin Kings. Estrada and Casas testified for the State and detailed their actions leading up to and following the shooting. The court granted the State's motion to give Casas use immunity for his testimony, as Casas was facing unrelated charges of possession of a firearm by a street gang member, and the prosecutor intended to question Casas at defendant's trial about his own gang affiliations.

¶ 12 Patton, who was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Kulpin
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 8, 2021
    ...apply to his circumstances, thus requiring the record to be developed sufficiently to make a Miller claim cognizable); People v. Figueroa , 2020 IL App (2d) 160650, ¶ 89, 441 Ill.Dec. 384, 156 N.E.3d 1133 (court declined to address as-applied proportionate penalties challenge where the reco......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 21, 2020
    ...we do not intend for our disposition to preclude defendant from advancing his claim through other available proceedings." People v. Figueroa , 2020 IL App (2d) 160650, ¶ 89, 441 Ill.Dec. 384, 156 N.E.3d 1133 ; see also Harris , 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 48, 427 Ill.Dec. 833, 120 N.E.3d 900.¶ 73 III......
  • People v. Devine
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 28, 2022
    ...but the facts alleged in the charging instrument must contain a broad foundation or main outline of the lesser offense.’ " People v. Figueroa , 2020 IL App (2d) 160650, ¶ 78, 441 Ill.Dec. 384, 156 N.E.3d 1133 (quoting Kennebrew , 2013 IL 113998, ¶ 30, 371 Ill.Dec. 297, 990 N.E.2d 197 ). " ‘......
  • People v. Ames
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 17, 2020
    ...Defendant was charged with violating section 24-1.8(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code). As we recently explained in People v. Figueroa , 2020 IL App (2d) 160650, ¶¶ 70-71, 441 Ill.Dec. 384, 156 N.E.3d 1133, section 24-1.8(a)(1) provides:"(a) A person commits unlawful possession of a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT