People v. Holt
| Decision Date | 07 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 3-16-0504 |
| Citation | 429 Ill.Dec. 577,124 N.E.3d 1087,2019 IL App (3d) 160504 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick L. HOLT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
¶ 1 The defendant, Frederick L. Holt, was convicted of burglary ( 720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2014) ) and retail theft (id. § 16-25(a)(1) ) and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of eight and three years, respectively. On appeal, Holt argues that (1) the State failed to prove that he committed the offense of burglary, (2) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of retail theft, and (3) he is entitled to a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
¶ 3 On July 23, 2014, the State charged Holt with burglary and retail theft. The charges stemmed from an incident that took place at a Walmart in Rock Falls on July 22, 2014. The State alleged that on July 22, 2014, Holt (1) entered Walmart without authority and with the intent to commit theft and (2) stole 11 T-shirts, three packages of socks, and a dress, all of which had a total value of less than $ 300.
¶ 4 The circuit court held a jury trial on February 11 and 12, 2015. Amanda Peppers testified that she was shopping with her nephew in the Rock Falls Walmart on July 22, 2014. When she was in the parking lot getting ready to leave, her nephew pointed out two males, one of whom she identified as Holt, who were coming out of the store. Peppers stated that she observed the males reach behind the soda machines, pull out backpacks, take items out of their clothes, and place the items in the backpacks. She testified that she observed Holt take "something long and orange, like a fabric of some sort" out of his pants and place it in a red and black backpack. Peppers further stated that the two males walked back into the vestibule by the Coinstar machine, but she could not see what they were doing. Then, the males walked back into the store. She stated that the males carried the backpacks into the vestibule by the Coinstar machine, but when they reentered the store, they were no longer carrying the backpacks.
¶ 5 Peppers called the police. Subsequently, she saw the males exit Walmart separately. When Holt left the store, he was not carrying anything. He sat on a bench outside the door.
¶ 6 After the police arrived and arrested the other male, Peppers exited her vehicle and approached Rock Falls police officer James Hollaway. While they were talking, she noticed a red and black backpack on top of the Coinstar machine.
¶ 7 On cross-examination, Peppers stated that she saw the males inside the store while she was shopping, but she did not see them steal anything. Peppers also admitted that she "may have" told Hollaway that she "was tired of these people going in the store and stealing stuff." She acknowledged that both males were black.
¶ 8 Hollaway testified that when he arrived on the scene, he noticed a red and black backpack on the Coinstar machine in the store's vestibule. He took the backpack over to Holt and, after being informed that Holt had already been Mirandized (see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ), asked if it was his; Holt said no. Hollaway told Holt the backpack was abandoned property, so he opened it and found girl's clothing and a transit identification card that did not bear Holt's name. When asked about the ID card, Holt said it was his friend's card.
¶ 9 Hollaway testified that the backpack contained three packs of socks, a dress, a pair of pants, and a two-piece shirt set. He described the packs of socks and noted that one of them did not have a sticker on it. He stated that neither the dress nor the pants had tags on them, but the exhibit contained a tag that he believed was from the dress. He read the tag: "Hello Kitty thirteen ninety seven, high low dress[.]" He also described the shirt set as "Faded Glory, two-piece set size five, says Walmart.com, rack 15, $ 7.92." There was an owl on the shirt that matched owls on the purple pants. Hollaway also described the 11 T-shirts that were found on Holt's person. All of the T-shirts were priced at $ 4.88 or $ 4.97.
¶ 10 Hollaway testified that he concluded the items had been stolen because there were no receipts and no proof that Holt had paid for the items. He stated that the store manager had scanned the items and determined that they all were items offered for sale by Walmart. He admitted that he did not scan the area or search garbage cans for any receipts.
¶ 11 Rock Falls police officer John Worcester testified that when he arrived on the scene, he saw a black male fitting a description of a suspect grab a backpack from on top of a Coinstar machine and walk away briskly when he saw the police officers approaching. Worcester approached Holt, who fit the description of the other suspect. Holt told Worcester his name, gave him a state identification card, and denied the red and black backpack was his. However, when asked by the police why he had someone else's ID card, Holt stated that his friend knew he had the ID. Worcester testified "[w]e took that as possibly him explaining that he was traveling using that or that he wasn't in trouble by having someone else's ID." Worcester stated the backpack contained 11 T-shirts that appeared to be made for young girls.
¶ 12 Worcester also noticed a large bulge in the front of Holt's pants. When asked about it, Holt stated that he had clothing in his pants. Because Holt had been arrested and Mirandized by that point, Worcester performed a pat-down of Holt, felt soft material in his pants, and removed the items, which were three packs of socks and a dress. Holt did not offer any explanation as to why the items were in his pants; Worcester testified that Holt "just kept denying it even though that is not how he carries things around."
¶ 13 Donna Courtney, the Rock Falls Walmart manager, testified that she determined that the items found in the red and black backpack and on Holt's person were items that were offered for sale by Walmart. She stated that the items were all located in the girl's wear section, which was an area not covered by surveillance cameras. A recording from the store's surveillance cameras was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. No identification of the individuals on the recording was made at trial; the prosecutor simply asked Courtney "did you have any interaction with Mr. Holt who is seen on the video?" Courtney said no. Defense counsel did not object.
¶ 14 During closing argument, defense counsel noted that Holt did not say anything to the police when they initially approached him. Counsel then stated:
¶ 15 In rebuttal, the prosecutor referred to the items found in Holt's pants and stated:
Defense counsel did not object.
¶ 16 The jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges.
¶ 17 Defense counsel filed a motion for new trial in which he alleged that the above-quoted statements made by the prosecutor in rebuttal argument constituted misconduct. At the hearing on the motion, the circuit court found that the prosecutor's statements violated Holt's constitutional right to remain silent and therefore constituted error. After noting that the error was neither corrected by the court sua sponte nor objected to by defense counsel, the court undertook a harmless error analysis. The court mentioned that the statements were only two sentences of a larger argument that came during rebuttal and that the jury was given an instruction that they were not to consider the fact that Holt did not testify, even though the prosecutor's statements were not related to in-court testimony. Ultimately, the court found that the error was harmless because the evidence was overwhelmingly against Holt and accordingly denied the motion for new trial.
¶ 18 Due to his criminal history, Holt was sentenced as a Class X offender on his burglary conviction. He received eight years of imprisonment for burglary, to be served concurrent to a three-year sentence for retail theft. After his motion to reconsider the sentence was denied, Holt appealed.
¶ 20 Holt's first argument on appeal is that the State failed to prove that he committed the offense of burglary. In part, he argues that the State failed to prove that he entered Walmart without authority and with the intent to commit a theft.
¶ 21 For the purposes of this argument, Holt does not dispute the facts or the evidence presented by the State at trial. Thus, the question of Holt's guilt is a question of law that we review de novo . People v. Smith , 191 Ill. 2d 408, 411, 247 Ill.Dec. 458, 732 N.E.2d 513 (2000).
¶ 22 Notably, there are two ways in which one can commit the offense of burglary: by either knowingly entering or without authority remaining within "a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft." 720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2014). In this case, Holt was charged with entering Walmart without authority.
¶ 23 Recently, a different panel of this court decided the case involving the burglary conviction of Darren Johnson, the other male Peppers saw with Holt at Walmart.
In People v. Johnson , 2018 IL App (3d) 150352, ¶ 12, 419 Ill.Dec. 751, 94 N.E.3d 289, a jury found Johnson guilty of burglary but not guilty of retail theft. On appeal, Johnson argued that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Holt
...supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, Third District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Holt , case No. 3-16-0504 [429 Ill.Dec. 577, 124 N.E.3d 1087] (03/07/19). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this Court's opinion in People v. Johnson , 2019 IL......