People v. Jardon
| Decision Date | 28 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-07-0145.,1-07-0145. |
| Citation | 913 N.E.2d 171 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose JARDON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Defender (Pamela Rubeo, Asst. Appellate Defender, of counsel), Chicago, IL, for Appellant.
Anita Alverez, State's Atty. (James E. Fitzgerald, Annette Collins and Kathryn A. Schierl, of counsel), Chicago, IL, for Appellee.
Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-2(a)(1) (West 2004)) and sentenced to a term of 20 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant challenges his conviction and sentence, asserting that (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress his videotaped statement because he was arrested without probable cause and (2) because he was 16 years old at the time of the offense, he should have been sentenced as a juvenile under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2004)) rather than as an adult under the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-1-1 et seq. (West 2004)). For the reasons that follow, we vacate the defendant's conviction and sentence and remand the cause with directions.
The record reveals that the defendant was charged with first degree murder and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/9-1, 24-1.6 (West 2004)) for the May 11, 2004, fatal shooting of Jonathon Collazo. Co-defendant Alfonso Carnalla was also charged in connection with the shooting. Because the defendant was 16 years old and had been charged with first degree murder, his case was automatically transferred from juvenile court to criminal court pursuant to section 5-130(1)(a) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(a) (West 2004)).
Prior to trial, the defendant and co-defendant Carnalla filed separate motions to quash their arrests and to suppress evidence. The evidence presented at the joint hearing on the pretrial motions established the following relevant facts.1
The shooting of Jonathon Collazo occurred at approximately 5:30 p.m. on May 11, 2004, in the 1900 block of North Keystone Avenue in Chicago, and several police officers and detectives were immediately assigned to investigate the crime. After arriving at the scene, Detective Robert Carrillo was informed by Cook County Sheriff James Meyer that a blue Grand Marquis, bearing a license plate with the number "3883151," was alleged to have been involved in the shooting incident. One of the investigating officers checked the ownership of that license plate and learned that it was registered to Alfonso Carnalla, Sr., who lived at 2442 North Austin Avenue in Chicago.
Officer Rene Arriazola, testified that he was informed by Detective Carrillo that the shooting allegedly occurred from a moving vehicle. Carrillo also advised him of the description of the car, its license plate number, and the name and address of the owner. Arriazola stated that he was also informed that the windshield and side panels of the car were damaged and that the occupants of the car had been described as "youthful male Hispanics."
According to Arriazola, he and several other police officers drove to the alley behind 2442 North Austin Avenue. As they pulled up, the overhead garage door opened, and they observed a blue Grand Marquis bearing a license plate that matched the number they had been previously provided. Arriazola saw a young Hispanic male and an Hispanic female standing in the garage, several feet from the car. Arriazola did not see anyone inside or exiting the car, nor did he know how long the car had been parked in the garage. Officer Arriazola admitted that he and the other officers entered the garage without a warrant and, before asking any questions, escorted the young man, whom they later learned to be co-defendant Carnalla, out of the garage. The police conducted a pat-down search of Carnalla to verify that he was not armed, cuffed him, and placed him in the back seat of a squad car.
Arriazola further testified that Carnalla was advised of his Miranda rights and stated that he understood them before he agreed to speak with the police. Carnalla then told the police that he had been driving the vehicle that was involved in the shooting and that his cousin, whose nickname was "Joker," was the shooter. Carnalla also stated that, after the shooting incident, he drove "Joker" and the other passengers in the car to a house located at 2911 North Monitor. Arriazola testified that Carnalla described "Joker" as an Hispanic male who was wearing a plaid shirt and had a haircut with a shaved pattern. Carnalla also said that his girlfriend, Sandra Delgado, was in the front seat of the car at the time of the shooting, but he did not describe the other occupants of the car, the gun, or provide specific details about the victim and the circumstances of the shooting.
Arriazola stated that, at approximately 8 p.m., he drove to 2911 North Monitor while Carnalla was still in the back seat of the squad car. There, they saw a group of about 10 people, including five young Hispanic males, standing in the front yard. According to Arriazola, one of those individuals matched the description of the shooter that had been provided by Carnalla. Arriazola testified that Carnalla indicated that the shooter was among the people standing in the yard, and he described that person's clothing, but Carnalla did not specifically point out any individual member of the group. Arriazola drove past the house toward the end of the block and dispatched a radio message to his fellow officers with a description of the suspect's appearance and clothing. The following officers exited their vehicles, and Arriazola saw that everyone in the yard, including the defendant, was ordered onto the ground. Arriazola subsequently learned that the defendant had been arrested.
Co-defendant Carnalla testified that, at approximately 6 p.m. on May 11, 2004, he and his mother, Sarah Carnalla, were in their garage when they heard a car driving down the alley. Carnalla's mother thought the car might be that of his older brother, and she told him to open the overhead door of the garage. Carnalla stated that, when he opened the garage door, he saw 8 to 10 police officers facing the garage, with their guns drawn. According to Carnalla, he was standing about two feet away from the car at the time. The police officers did not ask any questions, but ordered him and his mother to raise their hands. Two of the officers then grabbed him by the arm and took him out of the garage. The officers searched him for weapons, cuffed him, and put him in a squad car, where they questioned him about the shooting. Carnalla testified that, in response to questions by the police, he said that the defendant and others were with him while he was driving the car earlier that day. He also told the officers that the defendant had fired a gun from the car and that he later dropped the defendant off at 2911 North Monitor. Carnalla further stated that he gave the police a description of the defendant's clothing on the day of the shooting. According to Carnalla, while he was handcuffed and seated in the back of the squad car, he saw some of the officers search his father's vehicle, which had a broken windshield and damage to both sides. A shell casing was recovered during the search. Carnalla testified that he was not advised of his Miranda rights, and the police did not show him either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. He further stated that neither he nor his mother gave the police permission to search the car.
The defendant testified that, at 8:13 p.m. on May 11, 2004, he was standing on the front lawn at 2911 North Monitor, along with about 12 other people, including Edwin and Alex Torres, when three unmarked police cars pulled up. Three officers exited their cars and approached the group with their guns drawn. The officers ordered him and several other people to lie face down on the ground. The defendant testified that, at that time, he felt like he was under arrest and not free to leave. Before being ordered to the ground, the defendant was not asked to identify himself, nor was he shown an arrest warrant. He was subsequently taken to the police station where he was questioned and fingerprinted.
At the close of the joint hearing on the defendants' motions to quash their arrests and to suppress evidence, the trial court denied Carnalla's motion, finding that there was probable cause for his arrest. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, based on the determination that Carnalla's statement implicating him was not supported by sufficient indicia of reliability and did not establish probable cause for his arrest.
On the State's motion, the court thereafter conducted an attenuation hearing to determine whether the defendant's statements were admissible against him despite the fact that the police lacked probable cause at the time of his arrest. The only witness called was Detective Carrillo, who testified that on the night of May 11, 2004, several individuals were brought to the police station for questioning about the shooting, including Edwin and Alex Torres and Sandra Delgado, who was a passenger in the car when the shots were fired. Each of these individuals was interviewed by Carrillo or by his partner between 9 p.m. and midnight, and the State's Attorney's office was notified about the investigation. Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) Jane Sack interviewed Delgado at approximately 4:40 a.m. on May 12, 2004. The interview lasted for about 20 minutes and was conducted in the presence of Carrillo and a youth officer. After this interview, Sack offered to memorialize Delgado's remarks in a handwritten statement, and Delgado agreed. Delgado's handwritten statement, which was taken at 5:16 a.m., implicated the defendant in the shooting death of Collazo.
Carrillo published Delgado's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zitzka v. the Vill. of Westmont
... ... A witness's motive is one of the factors to be considered in assessing the totality of circumstances supporting probable cause. People v. Jardon, 393 Ill.App.3d 725, 332 Ill.Dec. 576, 913 N.E.2d 171, 184 (2009); see also People v. Rice, 166 Ill.2d 35, 209 Ill.Dec. 635, 651 N.E.2d ... ...
-
People v. Smith
... ... Invited error aside, defendant asserts the error here rendered the judgment void. Because a void judgment can be attacked at any time ( People v. Jardon, 393 Ill.App.3d 725, 739, 332 Ill.Dec. 576, 913 N.E.2d 171 (2009)), we consider defendant's assertion. A judgment is void, rather than merely voidable, only where the court entering the judgment lacked jurisdiction over the parties, over the subject matter, or exceeded its statutory authority to ... ...
-
People v. Toney
... ... 705 ILCS 405/5130(1)(c)(ii) (West 2000). 76 Section 5130(1)(c)(ii) is a mandatory provision and the failure to comply with its terms requires that the minor be sentenced as a juvenile. People v. Jardon, 393 Ill.App.3d 725, 740, 332 Ill.Dec. 576, 913 N.E.2d 171 (2009); People v. Champ, 329 Ill.App.3d 127, 133, 263 Ill.Dec. 477, 768 N.E.2d 237 (2002). 77 In this case, the State filed a timely written motion requesting a hearing to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced as an adult ... ...
-
People v. M.I. (In re M.I.)
... ... 53 Respondent cited several cases in support of his argument that section 5810(2) is mandatory. The cases cited, People v. Jardon, 393 Ill.App.3d 725, 332 Ill.Dec. 576, 913 N.E.2d 171 (2009), People v. Mathis, 357 Ill.App.3d 45, 293 Ill.Dec. 51, 827 N.E.2d 932 (2005), and People v. Champ, 329 Ill.App.3d 127, 263 Ill.Dec. 477, 768 N.E.2d 237 (2002), did not consider section 5810(2), but instead involved section ... ...