People v. Johnson

• Citation: 444 Ill.Dec. 439,164 N.E.3d 64,2020 IL App (1st) 172987
• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-17-2987,1-17-2987
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 172987
164 N.E.3d 64
444 Ill.Dec. 439

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Rodney JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-17-2987

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed May 29, 2020

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Eric E. Castañeda, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, David H. Iskowich, and David G. Myers, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

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

444 Ill.Dec. 441

¶ 1 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant-appellant, Rodney Johnson, was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, possession of a controlled substance, possession of cocaine, and possession of cannabis. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the search of his residence violated the Illinois Constitution; and (4) the State failed to prove him guilty of possession of a controlled substance. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County, reduce the defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance to the lesser-included offense under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act ( 720 ILCS 570/100 et seq. (West 2016)), and remand the case for resentencing.

164 N.E.3d 67

444 Ill.Dec. 442

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The defendant was arrested and charged with eight different gun and narcotic offenses after a gun, ammunition, and numerous drugs were found inside his residence. At the time, the defendant was a parolee who was out of prison on mandatory supervised release (MSR) for a prior felony conviction.¹ Before being released on MSR, the defendant signed a "Parole or Mandatory Supervised Release Agreement" (MSR agreement). The MSR agreement provided "Rules of Conduct" that governed the defendant's MSR. The relevant rule of conduct stated: "You shall consent to a search of your person, property, or residence under your control."

¶ 4 Prior to the commencement of trial, the defendant orally moved to suppress evidence, specifically the weapons and drugs recovered from the residence where he was arrested. A hearing on the defendant's motion followed.

¶ 5 During the hearing, the defendant called Tina Williams, a parole agent with the Illinois Department of Corrections. Williams testified that she was assigned to do a parole compliance check on the defendant to make sure he was in compliance with his MSR agreement. She testified that "probably two more" parole agents were with her, as well as several police officers, although she could not remember exactly how many. The defendant claimed that 12 parole agents and police officers participated in the search.

¶ 6 Williams testified that she and the others all arrived at the defendant's residence and he opened the door for them. The main purpose of the parole compliance check was to verify that the defendant was in compliance with his parole, including verifying that he actually lived at the residence by "looking for" "first class mail" and "property that belonged" to the defendant. The following colloquy ensued during the hearing:

"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And where normally do you look for these kinds of things?

[WILLIAMS]: It depends on how much access that the parolee says he has to [the] apartment. So we would ask the parolee first.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Did you ask [the defendant] if he had any mail to show you?

[WILLIAMS]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: What did he say?

[WILLIAMS]: In the beginning he didn't tell the truth. He said he had some first, but he couldn't find it.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So he said I have some but I couldn't find it?

[WILLIAMS]: No, he tried to find some in a room that was not his room.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Had you ever been to this apartment before?

[WILLIAMS]: No.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ha[d] you ever met [the defendant] before?

[WILLIAMS]: No.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So you, walking in, you had no firsthand knowledge about who lived in which room, correct?

[WILLIAMS]: Exactly.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So how many rooms were in this apartment?

[WILLIAMS]: Four.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Four bedrooms or four rooms total?

[WILLIAMS]: Four bedrooms.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And did you go into any of those bedrooms?

164 N.E.3d 68

444 Ill.Dec. 443

[WILLIAMS]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: How many of those bedrooms did you go into?

[WILLIAMS]: Well, I looked in all the rooms, but as far as * * * to check that was done [sic ], it was in two."

¶ 7 Williams then explained that the defendant took her and the other officers into a bedroom that contained "female belongings." They searched the room but did not find any mail addressed to the defendant. Williams asked the defendant which room was his. The defendant continued to claim that the room they were in, with the female belongings, was his room.²

¶ 8 When Williams told the defendant that she did not believe him because they could not find any of his belongings in that room, he told her to ask his uncle, who was letting him stay there. Williams requested that the uncle come to the bedroom area, and he identified another bedroom which was locked, as the defendant's room.

¶ 9 One of the police officers then broke the lock, opened the bedroom door, and entered. Inside the locked bedroom, the police officers found a gun, ammunition, and numerous drugs. The defendant was subsequently arrested.

¶ 10 When defense counsel asked Williams if she had a search warrant to search the defendant's residence, she responded: "No, we [weren't] searching the house."

¶ 11 On cross-examination, Williams testified that when she first arrived at the defendant's residence with the other officers, she knocked on the front door but no one answered. She called the defendant's cell phone. The defendant answered his phone and said he would be right down, but it took him six minutes to open the front door.

¶ 12 The defendant testified that when Williams came to his residence to complete the parole compliance check, there were four other parole agents and seven police officers with her. As soon as he opened the front door, all of the parole agents and police officers immediately entered inside the residence; they "grabbed" him and put him in handcuffs. The parole agents and police officers then "searched the whole house. * * * They [entered] rooms, look[ed] under mattresses, look[ed] in closets." He saw one police officer pull out a pocket knife and use it to "jimmie[ ]" a lock on one of the bedroom doors.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, the State asked the defendant about the MSR agreement:

"[THE STATE]: And one of those rules on that document says that your property, your person and your residence can be searched at any time?

[THE DEFENDANT]: Well, actually the document said I have to permit the agent to search it, meaning he needs my consent.

THE COURT: Ask him questions of fact. Not questions of law.

[THE STATE]: Okay. And you signed that agreement when you went on parole?

[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes. You have to sign it to get your parole.

[THE STATE]: Now, when the officers came and knocked on your door, you let them into your residence?

[THE DEFENDANT]: I didn't let them in. I answered the door and they forced themselves in.

* * *

164 N.E.3d 69

444 Ill.Dec. 444

[THE STATE]: After the officers enter[ed] your bedroom, they found drugs in your room, correct?

[THE DEFENDANT]: That wasn't my bedroom.

[THE STATE]: In the middle of [the] bedroom, they found—

[THE DEFENDANT]: I [didn't] know what they found until I got charged with it.

[THE STATE]: When they were—when they jimmied into that bedroom, some of your belongings were in there, correct?

[THE DEFENDANT]: From my understanding they told me they found my ID in the room."

¶ 14 At that point in the defendant's testimony, the court stated:

"I want to know if he has standing. That's one thing that is coming up and that's occurring to me is does he have standing. So I'd like to know if he's acknowledging which bedroom certain things were searched and certain things were found. So let's find out if he has standing to bring a motion."

The State continued questioning the defendant:

"[THE STATE]: Now, is your bedroom the second bedroom that was locked?

[THE DEFENDANT]: Actually, they asked me where I sleep at. I sleep on the couch. Then they asked me where were my clothes. I [pointed to] the room that they referred to as the storage room.

[THE STATE]: Was any of your belongings or property in the locked bedroom?

[THE DEFENDANT]: No, it was just—they said it was my ID and a piece of mail and my cell phone, and that was in my pants pocket.

[THE STATE]: Were the drugs that were recovered in that room your drugs?

[THE DEFENDANT]: No, they w[ere] not.

[THE STATE]: Was the gun in that room [yours]?

[THE DEFENDANT]: No, it was not.

[THE STATE]: Was

...