People v. Hicks
Decision Date | 26 March 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 82979,82979 |
Citation | 181 Ill.2d 541,693 N.E.2d 373,230 Ill.Dec. 244 |
Parties | , 230 Ill.Dec. 244 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Joey HICKS, Appellant. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Defendant, Joey Hicks, was charged by indictment with two counts of home invasion. 720 ILCS 5/12-11 (West 1992). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to a single six-year term of imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded the cause to the trial court for the entry of an additional sentence because the trial court failed to sentence defendant on the second conviction. 286 Ill.App.3d 588, 221 Ill.Dec. 922, 676 N.E.2d 725. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal (166 Ill.2d R. 315), and now reverse the decision of the appellate court.
The details which led to defendant's arrest and conviction are fully set forth in the appellate court's opinion. See 286 Ill.App.3d 588, 221 Ill.Dec. 922, 676 N.E.2d 725. However, we will summarize the relevant facts necessary to dispose of the issue presented. According to trial testimony, defendant and a friend, John Davis, pursued Michael Stewart, who had allegedly just stolen a necklace from defendant's girlfriend, Donna Hedge. Stewart rode his bike to the home of a friend, David Edmonds, entered the house, and locked the door. Defendant, Davis, and Hedge, having followed Stewart, demanded that Stewart come out of the house. When Stewart refused to come out, defendant and Davis began kicking and pushing on the door, eventually forcing their way inside. Once inside, Edmonds asked defendant and Davis to leave. Defendant then threw Stewart into a bedroom and battered him while Davis battered Edmonds in the next room.
Subsequent to his arrest, defendant was charged with two counts of home invasion. Both counts were based on his unauthorized entry into Edmonds' home. Count I of the indictment was based on Davis' infliction of injuries on Edmonds, and count II was based on defendant's infliction of injuries on Stewart.
The sole question presented for review in this case is whether defendant can be convicted of two counts of home invasion where one count was based on his own entry and the other count was based on his accomplice's simultaneous entry into the home. For the reasons expressed below, we hold that defendant can be convicted of only one entry and, therefore, one count of his home invasion conviction must be vacated.
We note that, initially, the State argues that defendant has waived this issue for review because he failed to object at trial and to include this issue in his post-trial motion. Issues not raised at trial and not presented in a written post-trial motion are ordinarily deemed waived on review. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d 176, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124 (1988). However, issues concerning substantial rights may be considered by a reviewing court even if not properly preserved in the trial court. 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a); People v. Brandon, 162 Ill.2d 450, 457-58, 205 Ill.Dec. 421, 643 N.E.2d 712 (1994). The imposition of an unauthorized sentence affects substantial rights. See People v. Brown, 197 Ill.App.3d 907, 145 Ill.Dec. 429, 557 N.E.2d 199 (1990). Furthermore, we note that the waiver rule is a rule of administrative convenience rather than jurisdiction, and the goals of obtaining a just result and maintaining a sound body of precedent may sometimes override considerations of waiver. People v. Farmer, 165 Ill.2d 194, 200, 209 Ill.Dec. 33, 650 N.E.2d 1006 (1995). Consequently, we will address the merits of defendant's claim.
Simply put, the defendant asks that we answer the following question: When two or more individuals simultaneously enter a residence, how many unlawful entries are there within the meaning of the home invasion statute? The elements of home invasion include: (1) an unauthorized entry into the dwelling of another where the defendant knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present; and (2) defendant intentionally causes injury or while armed with a dangerous weapon, defendant uses or threatens force upon any persons within the dwelling. See 720 ILCS 5/5-2 (West 1992).
The appellate court in this case held that defendant's convictions for home invasion must stand because 286 Ill.App.3d at 595, 221 Ill.Dec. 922, 676 N.E.2d 725. The court concluded that both of defendant's convictions were based on two different entries, and thus the one act, one crime rule was not implicated. 286 Ill.App.3d at 596, 221 Ill.Dec. 922, 676 N.E.2d 725.
We note that the First District of the appellate court in People v. Brown, 197 Ill.App.3d 907, 145 Ill.Dec. 429, 557 N.E.2d 199 (1990), has decided the same issue as is presented in the case sub judice. In Brown, the defendant was a guest in the victim's home when defendant allowed two men to enter into the victim's apartment in order to rob the victim. Defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of home invasion based on her accomplices' unauthorized entries into the victim's home. The State argued that the incident involved separate actions performed by two different offenders, and that defendant must be held accountable for the actions of both men. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the home invasion statute had been interpreted to reflect the legislative intent to impose only one count of home invasion for one unlawful entry of one dwelling. Specifically, the court stated:
Brown, 197 Ill.App.3d at 919, 145 Ill.Dec. 429, 557 N.E.2d 199.
The appellate court in this case expressly declined to follow Brown because it was based on "flawed reasoning and incorrect assumptions." 286 Ill.App.3d at 596, 221 Ill.Dec. 922, 676 N.E.2d 725. The court stated that in Brown, as in the case sub judice, each entrant could have been convicted of one count of home invasion based on his own entry and an additional count based on his accountability for the other person's entry. We disagree.
The accountability statute states in relevant part:
"A person is responsible for conduct which is an element of an offense if the conduct is either that of the person himself, or that of another and he is legally accountable for such conduct as provided in Section 5-2, or both." 720 ILCS 5/5-1 (West 1992).
"A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when:
* * *
(c) Either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense." 720 ILCS 5/5-2 (West 1992).
A charge based on accountability must necessarily flow from the principal crime at issue. People v. Stanciel, 153 Ill.2d 218, 233, 180 Ill.Dec. 124, 606 N.E.2d 1201...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jackson, 1-06-2787.
...may result." People v. Pollock, 202 Ill.2d 189, 210, 269 Ill.Dec. 197, 780 N.E.2d 669 (2002), citing People v. Hicks, 181 Ill.2d 541, 547, 230 Ill.Dec. 244, 693 N.E.2d 373 (1998). Viewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier......
-
People v. Carr-McKnight
...no matter the number of victims. Id. at 102, 216 Ill.Dec. 718, 665 N.E.2d 1275. Subsequent to Cole , in People v. Hicks , 181 Ill. 2d 541, 544, 230 Ill.Dec. 244, 693 N.E.2d 373 (1998), our supreme court addressed the question of how many home invasion convictions could stand when co-offende......
-
People v. Doehring
...defendant committed a single entry into the victims’ residence, two convictions for home invasion cannot stand. See People v. Hicks , 181 Ill. 2d 541, 549, 230 Ill.Dec. 244, 693 N.E.2d 373 (1998) ; People v. Cole , 172 Ill. 2d 85, 101-02, 216 Ill.Dec. 718, 665 N.E.2d 1275 (1996) ; People v.......
-
People v. Harvey, No. 89106
...previously, plain errors affecting substantial rights may be reviewed on appeal. 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a); People v. Hicks, 181 Ill.2d 541, 544-45, 230 Ill.Dec. 244, 693 N.E.2d 373 (1998). Unlike the mere-fact impeachment issue, an alleged one-act, one-crime violation and the potential for a su......