People v. Hutt

• Citation: 2022 IL App (4th) 190142,193 N.E.3d 879,456 Ill.Dec. 639
• Decision Date: 18 January 2022
• Docket Number: S. 4-19-0142,4-19-0271 cons.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliver J. HUTT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2022 IL App (4th) 190142

193 N.E.3d 879

456 Ill.Dec. 639

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Oliver J. HUTT, Defendant-Appellant.

NOS. 4-19-0142

4-19-0271 cons.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed January 18, 2022

James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and James Henry Waller, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Gary L. Farha, State's Attorney, of Quincy (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Kathy Shepard, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 The State charged defendant, Oliver J. Hutt, with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) ( 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2016)) in case No. 17-DT-51 and with obstructing justice ( 720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1) (West 2016)) in case No. 17-CF-405. Following a joint bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of both offenses. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of probation and required defendant to pay restitution.

¶ 2 Defendant appeals in both cases, and we have consolidated the two appeals.

¶ 3 Defendant argues that (1) the trial court improperly denied defendant a jury trial because he did not waive that right, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for misrepresenting that defendant waived a jury trial, (3) the evidence was not sufficient to find defendant guilty of obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt, and (4) the trial court's order for restitution was erroneous. We agree only with defendant's fourth contention. Accordingly, we vacate the restitution order and remand for further proceedings; we affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. Pretrial Proceedings and the Jury Waiver

¶ 6 In July 2017, the trial court conducted a preliminary hearing in case No. 17-CF-405. After finding probable cause, the court arraigned defendant and informed him, "You have the right to a speedy public trial, either a jury trial or a bench trial if you wish to waive or give up your jury trial right."

¶ 7 On October 10, 2017, defendant signed a jury waiver in two cases: the obstructing justice case (case No. 17-CF-405) and case No. 16-CF-752, in which he was charged with resisting a peace officer. Those were the only two case numbers written in the caption of the jury waiver. (The DUI case, case No. 17-DT-51, was not mentioned.) The preprinted language of the jury waiver read, "[T]he defendant *** waives his right to a trial by jury, in the above entitled cause [sic ], and consents to a trial by Court, without Jury." (Emphasis added.)

¶ 8 On October 25, 2017, the trial court conducted a status hearing for five criminal cases pending against defendant, including the DUI case. The court began the hearing by announcing, "Taking up 16-CF-752, 17-CF-405, 17-DT-51, 17-TR-2415, and [17-TR-]2416, People versus Oliver Hutt. [Defendant] appears in person and with counsel, Mr. Chris Pratt." (The traffic cases charged defendant with leaving the scene of an accident ( 625 ILCS 5/11-402 (West 2016) ) and improper lane usage (id. § 11-709)). Defense counsel remarked, "[Defendant] had previously waived his right to a jury trial." Addressing defendant personally, the court informed him, "[Y]ou've waived your right to a jury trial, so unless there's some other request from you, we are going to set these matters for a bench trial because that would be the next appropriate step." (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel interjected that plea negotiations were underway and that, as he had explained to defendant, "his options [were] either set it for a bench trial or accept that negotiation and set this matter for a plea." The court asked defendant what he wanted to do.

¶ 9 Instead of answering that question, defendant discussed why he had waived a jury trial. He did not dispute that he had, in fact, waived a jury trial. He explained why he had done so (and to put his explanation in context, we note that an unidentified woman had been seen exiting the passenger side of the car and running from the scene of the accident along with defendant):

"I was asking for my jury trial because I was facing—they're telling me I'm facing extended term, and I shouldn't be facing extended term. My last conviction was 2/25 of 2002, and they keep coming with dates of 2013 and 2008 to put me in a ten-year period. And they tried to force my wife to testify against me against her will, and that's the reason why I waived my jury trial. " (Emphases added.)

See 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(b)(1) (West 2016) (providing that a defendant convicted of a new felony within 10 years after previously being convicted of a felony, "excluding time spent in custody," is eligible for an extended-term sentence).

¶ 10 The trial court responded that, in any event, defendant had waived a jury trial and that the waiver would stand unless defendant filed a motion to withdraw the waiver:

"Well, you waived your right to a jury trial. That's a waiver of jury trial, and unless you would file something to withdraw that, you've waived your right to a jury trial. ***

* * *

*** Well, this is what we're going to do: We're going to set these cases for a bench trial since he's waived his right to a jury trial. And at this time he's not accepting any plea offer. It's up to the State whether or not the State wants to withdraw that offer or not. I'm not going to force them to do any of that.

But we're going to set these cases for a bench trial." (Emphases added.)

¶ 11 In March 2018, the trial court noted that defendant was present with defense counsel and that the resisting case, case No. 16-CF-752 (in which, in the interim, the court had found defendant guilty in a bench trial), was set for sentencing that day. Additionally, the court noted that the other cases pending against defendant, including the DUI case (case No. 17-DT-51), were up for a status hearing.

¶ 12 The State suggested getting the status hearing out of the way first:

"[THE PROSECUTOR]: Judge, before we get into that, can we just select a date in [case Nos.] 17-CF-405, 17-DT-51, and the TR numbers? Those are—were tracking for status, but the next step is, if [defendant] still wants it, a bench trial. So if we can just select that date, and then jump right into the sentencing?"

¶ 13 Defense counsel then responded as follows:

"Your Honor, I met with [defendant] earlier this week specifically on that issue and also to review the [presentence investigation report] in this case. As to 17-CF-405 [(the obstructing justice case)], [defendant] informed me that he does wish to proceed to trial on that matter.

In addition, [defendant] is quite insistent at least in his discussions with me that he is still entitled to a trial by jury in that case. I informed him that, on the date that he had waived in this case, he had waived on both of those cases going so far as to show him the scanned copy of that waiver contained with the circuit clerk's file. He does not agree with that." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, according to defense counsel, the jury waiver, which defendant signed on October 10, 2017, applied, by its terms, to both the resisting case (case No. 16-CF-752) and the obstructing justice case (case No. 17-CF-405). Those were the two case numbers written in the caption of the jury waiver. When defendant insisted to defense counsel that he still had the right to a jury trial in the obstructing justice case , defense counsel demonstrated to the contrary by showing defendant the jury waiver that he had signed on October 10, 2017.

¶ 14 The trial court decided that it needed to review a transcript of the pretrial hearing that was conducted on October 10, 2017:

"[W]e will get a transcript then of what took place at the hearing on the waiver, because the Court would need to know what was said when he waived before the Court could make any determination if he waived on both cases of what he was told. So why don't we set this for status on—or the other cases for status then on April the 25th at 8:45 a.m. And then the Court will order a transcript."

¶ 15 The sentencing hearing in the resisting case, case No. 16-CF-752, was continued because the prosecutor and defense counsel needed time to investigate defendant's eligibility for extended-term sentencing.

¶ 16 In April 2018, the trial court conducted a status hearing at which defendant appeared with counsel. The court began by announcing, "Next calling People versus Oliver Hutt in 16-CF-752, 17-CM-405, 17-DT-51, which includes tickets 17-TR-2415 and 2416." Defense counsel informed the court that he and the prosecutor agreed that defendant was eligible for extended-term sentencing (but defendant was unconvinced). With that question cleared up, the court set a sentencing hearing for the resisting case, case No. 16-CF-752.

¶ 17 Defense counsel then told the trial court, "[O]n the other case that is still pending, [defendant] indicates that he will want to take that to trial. He had waived earlier his right to a jury trial, so he needs to set that for a bench trial." (Actually, two other cases were pending, although they were factually related: the DUI case (No. 17-DT-51) and the obstructing justice case (No. 17-CF-405). Again, these are the two cases on appeal.) After conferring with the parties off the record, the court inquired as follows:

"THE COURT: What time would you like to start Tuesday, June 26, all-day trial in 17-CF-405?

[THE PROSECUTOR]: 9:00?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That's fine.

THE COURT: All right."

Thus, the DUI case was mentioned only at the beginning of this status hearing, and it was not explicitly set for a bench trial (although the obstructing justice case was).

¶ 18 On June 26, 2018, however, the trial court announced that the DUI case was one of the cases scheduled to be tried that day in a consolidated bench trial:

"THE COURT: We are taking up [case Nos.] 17-CF-405, 17-DT-51 , 17-TR-2415 and [17-TR-]2416, People versus Oliver Hutt. [Defendant] appears in

...