People v. Glinsey
| Docket Number | 1-19-1145 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 191145,196 N.E.3d 141,458 Ill.Dec. 27 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamontreal GLINSEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Joshua M. Bernstein, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, John E. Nowak, and Noah Montague, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Defendant Lamontreal Glinsey claims that the trial court erred by denying him leave to file a successive postconviction petition challenging his sentence.
¶ 2 Defendant, age 18, was convicted after a jury trial of first degree murder and sentenced on December 18, 2000, to 45 years, to be served at 100% in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Defendant claims that his sentence is a de facto life sentence under People v. Buffer , 2019 IL 122327, 434 Ill.Dec. 691, 137 N.E.3d 763, and that, as applied to him, it violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution, pursuant to numerous post- Buffer appellate court cases, such as People v. Franklin , 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶¶ 1-3, 446 Ill.Dec. 866, 171 N.E.3d 971 (); People v. Carrasquillo , 2020 IL App (1st) 180534, ¶¶ 4-5, 448 Ill.Dec. 569, 177 N.E.3d 327 ; People v. Ruiz , 2020 IL App (1st) 163145, ¶ 1, 444 Ill.Dec. 754, 165 N.E.3d 36 ; People v. Daniels , 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶¶ 1-2, 444 Ill.Dec. 300, 163 N.E.3d 1216 ; People v. Minniefield , 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 1-3, 440 Ill.Dec. 910, 155 N.E.3d 1166 (19-year-old) ; People v. Johnson , 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, ––– Ill.Dec. 446 Ill.Dec. 501, 170 N.E.3d 1027 (19-year-old) ; and People v. Savage , 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶¶ 1-4, 448 Ill.Dec. 897, 178 N.E.3d 221 ().
¶ 3 In response, the State does not argue that defendant failed to show cause for not raising his claim earlier and does not contest that defendant's sentence is a de facto life sentence. Rather, the State argues that defendant cannot show prejudice because his sentence was discretionary. However, this court has found numerous times that discretionary sentences are covered. See Franklin , 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶ 38, 446 Ill.Dec. 866, 171 N.E.3d 971 (discretionary sentence); Carrasquillo , 2020 IL App (1st) 180534, ¶¶ 1, 22, 448 Ill.Dec. 569, 177 N.E.3d 327 ; Ruiz , 2020 IL App (1st) 163145, ¶ 18, 444 Ill.Dec. 754, 165 N.E.3d 36 ; Minniefield , 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 12, 17, 440 Ill.Dec. 910, 155 N.E.3d 1166 ; Johnson , 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 16, 18, 446 Ill.Dec. 501, 170 N.E.3d 1027 ; Savage , 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶ 35, 448 Ill.Dec. 897, 178 N.E.3d 221 ; see also Daniels , 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶¶ 2, 6, 444 Ill.Dec. 300, 163 N.E.3d 1216 ().
¶ 4 For the following reasons, we find that defendant's petition meets the very low threshold required for filing a successive petition, and we reverse and remand for second-stage proceedings.
¶ 7 Since defendant does not challenge either the sufficiency of the evidence against him or the admission of any particular exhibit or piece of testimony, we summarize the trial evidence below.
¶ 8 At trial, Detective Edward Cunningham testified that, at 9 p.m. on the evening of November 6, 1998, he responded to a call concerning a shooting. After arriving at the scene, he observed Harry Hudson, the victim, lying dead on the sidewalk.
¶ 9 Detective John Murray testified that he arrested defendant over a week later and that, after the arrest, defendant informed him that the shooting was the result of a war between two gangs, the Gangster Disciples and the Black Disciples. Defendant told him that he and Antoine Anderson belonged to the Gangster Disciples and that, two weeks prior to the shooting, a member of the Black Disciples shot Anderson's brother. (Casanova Johnson subsequently testified that Anderson's brother was shot in the leg.)
¶ 10 Detective Murray testified that defendant informed him that Anderson wanted revenge for his brother's shooting and that Anderson, defendant, and Casanova Johnson obtained a rifle from a man named "Little Greg." After returning to Johnson's house, they went outside, and defendant fired the rifle at a liquor store frequented by Black Disciples. However, the gun jammed, so the three returned to Little Greg who cleared the jam. After they returned to the outside of Johnson's house, Anderson fired at the liquor store and Hudson, an innocent bystander, walked into the line of fire and was shot. (The victim later died from the wound inflicted.)
¶ 11 Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) Laura Forester testified that she spoke with defendant at the police station and that he had given a statement that was substantially similar to the statement he had made to Detective Murray.
¶ 12 Johnson testified that he was a member of the Gangster Disciples at the time of the offense; that Anderson's brother was shot in November 1998; and that Anderson told Johnson and defendant that Anderson intended to kill some Black Disciples in revenge for his brother's shooting. On November 6, 1998, after obtaining a rifle from a Gangster Disciple called "Bird," Johnson, defendant and Anderson were outside Johnson's house; and Anderson tried to shoot the rifle at a liquor store frequented by Black Disciples, but the rifle jammed. The three of them went back to Bird, who unjammed the rifle. Although they arrived at different times, the three of them were again standing outside Johnson's house that evening, when defendant fired the rifle five times toward the liquor store. (However, defendant did not hit anyone.) After firing it, defendant handed the gun to Anderson, who also fired toward the liquor store. When Anderson was shooting, Hudson ran into the line of fire and was shot. Defendant, Anderson and Johnson then fled from the scene.
¶ 13 Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial, denying that he was outside with Anderson and Johnson during the shooting. Defendant denied that he handed Anderson a rifle or told him to shoot toward the liquor store. Defendant testified that the statement he made to the ASA was not true and that he made the statement because police officers had beaten him.
¶ 14 Benny Ybarra, a paramedic with Cermak Health Services, testified that he examined defendant as a new detainee on November 16, 1998. Ybarra testified that the report of his examination did not show signs of injury. Similarly, ASA Forester testified that defendant did not complain to her of police abuse, and she did not observe any injuries.
¶ 15 During closing argument, the State argued that the jury should find defendant guilty pursuant to an accountability theory, and the trial court instructed the jury concerning accountability. After listening to the evidence, arguments, and jury instructions, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder.
¶ 17 The presentence investigation report (PSI) was completed on December 18, 2000, and indicated that the instant offense occurred 11 days after defendant's eighteenth birthday. The PSI reported that defendant had no adult convictions and no pending cases or warrants. Defendant had only one juvenile conviction for drug possession, for which he received probation. At the time of his arrest, defendant resided with his parents, who were both employed and who had been married throughout defendant's life. Defendant responded that neither parent used drugs or alcohol in his presence, and there was no physical or sexual abuse in the home. Until his arrest, defendant attended high school where he was a below-average student. Defendant reported no physical or mental health problems and denied drug and alcohol use. For two months prior to his arrest, he was employed at a fast-food restaurant.
¶ 18 Defendant admitted that he had been a member of the Gangster Disciples since he was twelve years old, and he had gang tattoos. However, he denied having any rank within the organization.
¶ 19 At the sentencing hearing on December 18, 2000, the State observed that the sentencing range was 20 to 60 years, to be served at 100% of the sentence. In aggravation, the State submitted a victim impact statement from the victim's family. The State also observed that, when this offense was committed, defendant was on juvenile probation for drug possession; that the instant offense was gang-motivated; and that the victim was an innocent bystander.
¶ 20 In mitigation, defense counsel responded that, although defendant was on juvenile probation, this was defendant's first violent offense. At the time of the offense, defendant was both a senior in high school and employed at a fast food restaurant. While counsel observed that defendant was "approximately 18 years old" at the time of the offense, counsel made no arguments regarding defendant's age. Counsel also did not offer any arguments concerning age-related factors such as peer pressure, except to remark that defendant had "bad friends" like Anderson. Stressing that defendant did not pull the trigger on the victim, counsel argued for a sentence between 20 and 25 years.
¶ 21 The trial court made a specific finding "that Mr. Anderson was the motivating force and that [defendant] was not that motivating force, at least [not] the significant primary motivating force." However, finding that defendant intended the same result as Anderson, the court sentenced defendant to 45 years.
¶ 22 Anderson, who was 17 years old...
To continue reading
Request your trial