People v. Knox

Decision Date30 September 2014
Docket NumberNo. 1–12–0349.,1–12–0349.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Vandaire KNOX, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

19 N.E.3d 1070

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Vandaire KNOX, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–12–0349.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Sept. 30, 2014.


19 N.E.3d 1072

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Jennifer L. Bontrager, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Anthony O'Brien, and Iris G. Ferosie, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Presiding Justice PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Vandaire Knox was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed thereon, arguing: (1) the circuit court erred in permitting the State to impeach him with his three prior felony convictions; and (2) the 45–year sentence imposed by the circuit court is excessive. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Guilty Plea

¶ 4 On December 18, 1999, Rodney Clifton was shot and killed. Defendant was subsequently charged with first degree murder in connection with Clifton's death. Thereafter, on May 20, 2002, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to the charge of first degree murder in exchange for a sentence of 35 years' imprisonment. Defendant, however, later sought to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of trial counsel during his plea proceedings. Defendant was appointed new postplea counsel, who filed a supplemental motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Postplea counsel, however, did not file a certificate of compliance in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). The circuit

19 N.E.3d 1073

court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, and defendant appealed. On appeal, this court remanded the cause back to the circuit court for vacatur of defendant's plea. In an unpublished Rule 23 order, we found that vacatur was warranted because postplea counsel had not strictly complied with the mandatory certificate requirement set forth in Rule 604(d). People v. Knox, No. 1–03–1010, 351 Ill.App.3d 1168, 315 Ill.Dec. 322, 876 N.E.2d 322 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ).

¶ 5 First Jury Trial

¶ 6 Following remand, defendant withdrew his guilty plea. Defendant then elected to proceed by way of a jury trial. Prior to that trial, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to bar the State from using his prior felony convictions to impeach him. The circuit court, however, refused to rule on defendant's motion until after defendant testified, reasoning that such a ruling was premature absent defendant's decision to testify. During the trial that ensued, defendant did elect to exercise his right to testify and, thereafter, the circuit court permitted the State to impeach defendant with his prior convictions. At the conclusion of defendant's trial, the jury convicted him of first degree murder and he was subsequently sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging his conviction on several grounds, including the circuit court's delayed ruling on his motion in limine. In another unpublished Rule 23 order, this court reversed his conviction, finding that “the trial court's failure to rule on the defendant's motion in limine until after he testified amounted to reversible error.” People v. Knox, No. 1–06–3278, order at 15–16 (2009) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ). Finding this issue dispositive, we remanded the cause for a new trial.

¶ 7 Second Jury Trial

¶ 8 On remand, the parties once again prepared for trial. Prior to the start of defendant's second jury trial, the State filed a motion in limine, seeking the circuit court's ruling on the admissibility of three of defendant's prior felony convictions. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court ruled that defendant could be impeached with his prior convictions if he elected to testify. Following the court's ruling on pretrial motions, the cause proceeded to trial.

¶ 9 Misty Allen testified that she was Rodney Clifton's girlfriend in December 1999. They met at Schwab Rehabilitation Center, where they both worked. On December 19, 1999, Allen had plans to go to Vanity Nightclub (Vanity), located at 5005 West North Avenue, with her cousin, Sonya, and Ondrell Schaffer, her children's uncle. Allen explained that Schaffer was the younger brother of Reginald Schaffer, the father of her two children, and was often referred to by his nickname: “Country.” Allen testified that shortly after midnight Country arrived on the block in which she lived. He was driving a red two-door Chevrolet Beretta, and defendant, whom Allen had known for approximately 10 years, was a passenger in Country's car. When they arrived, Allen was sitting in Clifton's car, a maroon four-door Chevy Malibu. Allen explained that Clifton had stopped by her apartment unannounced after he had been drinking and that he was not supposed to accompany her to Vanity that night. She was simply sitting in his car waiting for her friends to arrive.

¶ 10 After Country and defendant arrived, defendant walked over to Clifton's car, approached the passenger side where Allen was sitting, pulled on the door handle, and said: “What you doing in the car with this nig* * *? You supposed to be

19 N.E.3d 1074

going out with us. Why you in the car with this nig* * *?” Allen recalled that Clifton became upset and told defendant to “ let [his] car door go.” Clifton got out of the car and the two men then “had a little tussle.” After it was broken up, Clifton returned to his car and defendant returned to Country's car. The two vehicles then drove toward Vanity. On the way to the nightclub, Allen was a passenger in her boyfriend's car and stated that he and defendant continued “hollering and cussing” at each other. At one point, Clifton stopped his car in the street and exited the vehicle. Defendant then exited Country's car and walked toward Clifton. Defendant was holding a metal steering wheel locking device known as a “Club.” Clifton was able to get the Club out of defendant's hands and Allen and Country were able to break the two men apart. Once the two men were back in their respective vehicles, both cars continued driving toward Vanity.

¶ 11 Clifton and Allen arrived at the nightclub first and Clifton stopped his vehicle in front of the club. Although Clifton was dropping her off and was not planning to enter the nightclub, Allen testified that she remained seated in the front passenger seat of her boyfriend's car and waited for her cousin and Country to arrive. After waiting for approximately 10 minutes, a grey station wagon “pulled up fast” and stopped in front of Clifton's car. The car was driven by another one of Allen's acquaintances, Linnell Little. She saw defendant exit Little's car and begin walking toward Clifton's car. Defendant was carrying a gun. Allen immediately exited Clifton's car and approached defendant, urging him repeatedly “please don't do this.” Defendant, however, raised the gun, pointed at Clifton and started firing at Clifton's window. Allen saw Clifton raise his arms to protect himself. She estimated that defendant fired “about six times” at her boyfriend.

¶ 12 After defendant stopped firing, Allen began screaming at him, calling him a “pus* * * mother fuc* * *.” In response, defendant told her that he was “sorry” and walked back to Little's car. As it drove off, Allen picked up the Club that Clifton had taken from defendant during their earlier confrontation and threw it at the rear window, breaking it. Allen returned to Clifton's vehicle and found her boyfriend unresponsive. She ran into nightclub and asked someone to call “911.” After emergency medical personnel and police officers arrived at the scene, Allen identified defendant as the person who shot and killed her boyfriend.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Allen denied that Clifton had a gun in his car at the time he was shot or that he had threatened defendant with a gun at any time that evening. She acknowledged, however, that defendant and Clifton had screamed a lot of words at each other during their altercations that night and that she “didn't hear everything” that had been said. To Allen's knowledge, defendant and Clifton had not met prior to that night.

¶ 14 Melissa Stiler testified that she was Linnell Little's “steady girlfriend” in December 1999. At the time, Stiler “knew of” defendant because he was someone with whom Little had grown up. She recalled that she was with Little “in the late evening hours” of December 18, 1999. He picked her up from her grandmother's house in his gray station wagon and they drove around. When they reached the area of Lamont and Augusta, Stiler recalled seeing people standing around, including Ondrell Schaffer, whom she also knew as Country, and defendant. Country was also someone that her boyfriend knew from the neighborhood. Stiler also recalled seeing several cars parked nearby, including a red car, a darker maroon vehicle

19 N.E.3d 1075...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • People v. Thompson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 21 Mayo 2020
    ...bar, a reviewing court will start with the presumption that it is proper. See People v. Knox , 2014 IL App (1st) 120349, ¶ 46, 385 Ill.Dec. 874, 19 N.E.3d 1070. Generally, a reviewing court will disturb a sentence "only if the trial court abused its discretion in the sentence it imposed." P......
  • People v. Guerrero
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 4 Junio 2020
    ...range, a reviewing court will start with the presumption that it is proper. People v. Knox , 2014 IL App (1st) 120349, ¶ 46, 385 Ill.Dec. 874, 19 N.E.3d 1070. Generally, a reviewing court will disturb a sentence "only if the trial court abused its discretion in the sentence it imposed." Peo......
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Octubre 2018
    ...the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's rehabilitative potential. People v. Knox , 2014 IL App (1st) 120349, ¶ 46, 385 Ill.Dec. 874, 19 N.E.3d 1070 (citing Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11, and People v. Lee , 379 Ill. App. 3d 533, 539, 318 Ill.Dec. 808, 884 N.E.2d 776 (2008) )."To......
  • People v. Walker
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 10 Agosto 2021
    ...to be proper, and we will not disturb the sentence absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Knox, 2014 IL App (1st) 120349, ¶ 46, 19 N.E.3d 1070. 76 We will not reweigh the factors considered by the trial court, as defendant asks us to do (see Etherton, 2017 IL App (5th) 140427, ¶ 26), and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT