People v. Lagrone

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: McLAREN JUSTICE.
• Citation: People v. Lagrone, 2025 IL App (2d) 230543, 2-23-0543 (Ill. App. Nov 12, 2025)
• Docket Number: 2-23-0543
• Decision Date: 12 November 2025
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGEL A. LAGRONE, Defendant-Appellant.

1

2025 IL App (2d) 230543

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGEL A. LAGRONE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-23-0543

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

November 12, 2025

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 20-CF-931 Honorable Alice C. Tracy, Judge, Presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Christopher McCoy and Ann Fick, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee: Jamie L. Mosser, State's Attorney, of St. Charles (Patrick Delfino, Edward R Psenicka, and Clare Wesolik Connolly, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

McLAREN JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Jorgensen and Mullen concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

McLAREN JUSTICE.

¶ 1 After a bench trial, defendant, Angel A. Lagrone, was found guilty but mentally ill of six counts of home invasion (720 ILCS 5/19-6(a)(1), (2), (3) (West 2018)), one count of armed violence (id. § 33A-2(a)), three counts of attempted aggravated kidnapping (id. §§ 8-4(a), 10-2(a)(2), (5), (6)), one count of aggravated domestic battery (id. § 12-3.3(a)), six counts of aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(a)(1), (d)(1), (f)(1)), and two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5), (a)(3)(C)). Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. Defendant now appeals, contending that (1) the trial court's findings of guilty but mentally ill were against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) she was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) her convictions of attempted aggravated kidnapping must be reversed because a parent cannot be convicted of kidnapping her own child; and (4) her conviction of aggravated domestic battery must be vacated pursuant to the doctrine of one act/one crime. We affirm in part, affirm as modified in part, reverse in part, and remand.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The 10-year marriage of defendant and her husband, Charles Guyton, was dissolved in 2019. Defendant then moved to California, while Guyton, who was awarded custody of their son, N.G., moved to Aurora, Illinois, where they lived with Guyton's mother (Maria Phillips), and grandmother.

¶ 4 Starting in early 2020, defendant began almost daily calling Aurora police to perform wellness checks on N.G because, as she later explained, Guyton told her that he was molesting N.G. and was going to start raping him. When the police told her that they would no longer perform the wellness checks, defendant decided to drive to Illinois to take N.G. to a hospital.

¶ 5 Upon arriving in Aurora, defendant stayed at a local motel. She practiced driving to the hospital nearest her motel. She drove past Guyton's house multiple times "trying to figure out how I was gonna get my son out of there." On May 24, 2020, defendant drove through Guyton's neighborhood and walked onto Guyton's property and that of a neighbor. Defendant taped a cell phone to her baseball cap to record her surveillance, which included looking into Guyton's enclosed porch and examining the home's windows.

¶ 6 The following morning, May 25, 2020, defendant returned to Guyton's home with a knife, a baseball bat, a gun, and duct tape. She again taped the cell phone to her cap and recorded the ensuing events. After walking through a neighbor's yard, defendant climbed a fence, entered Guyton's enclosed porch by cutting through a screen window, then opened a door and entered the house. All the while, Phillips was yelling at defendant to get off her property. Phillips went up the stairs to the second floor and called for Guyton as she continued to demand that defendant leave.

¶ 7 The cellphone taped to defendant's hat was pointed upward and did not capture any faces, but the voices of defendant, Guyton, Phillips, and N.G. can be heard. Defendant struck Phillips on the head with the baseball bat and injured Phillips's arm. When Guyton rushed her to disarm her, defendant repeatedly slashed his scalp with the box cutter. Guyton was able to knock the gun away from defendant and wrestled her to the ground. Phillips called 911, and both she and N.G. fled to a neighbor's house. The police arrived and defendant, Guyton, and Phillips were taken to the hospital.

¶ 8 The State charged defendant with 19 felonies. At trial, the parties informed the court that both sides would be presented largely by stipulation. We turn first to videos entered into evidence to provide a more complete background to the incident. These include recorded interviews with defendant, Guyton, and Phillips. The videos defendant recorded from the day of the incident, and her surveilling the neighborhood the day before, were also entered into evidence.

¶ 9 A. Video Interviews

¶ 10 Kane County Sheriff deputies conducted a series of interviews in the days following the incident. Each was video recorded and entered into evidence without objection.

¶ 111. Defendant Interview

¶ 12 Kane County Sheriff's Deputies Andrew Biddle and Edward Catich interviewed defendant on the day of the incident, after she had been released from the hospital. The video-recorded interview lasted approximately two hours. The first quarter-hour of the video is primarily of defendant with a white sheet covering her head and upper body, resting her head on a table. When the officers entered the room, Biddle reintroduced himself and referred to conversations that he had with defendant at the hospital. Biddle administered a Miranda warning (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)), and defendant waived her right to remain silent. She clarified that she wanted to speak to the police before speaking to a lawyer in case the lawyer advised her not to speak. Defendant was adamant that she wanted to tell the officers "everything."

¶ 13 During the interview, defendant returned repeatedly to her request that N.G. be examined for proof of sexual assault. She insisted that it was vital that doctors perform a blood test for "daterape drugs" and administer a "rape kit." Defendant also requested that both she and Guyton be subjected to a lie detector test to show who was telling the truth. She wanted police to ask Guyton "about the child pornography he is recording of my son." Defendant also seemed concerned about how long it would take for Guyton to be brought to justice because she had just recently started a new job in California.

¶ 14 Defendant claimed that Guyton had told her in February 2020 that he was molesting N.G. and planned to rape him. She called the police daily to conduct wellness checks until police told her that they would no longer conduct wellness checks. "After I realized [Guyton] was drugging [N.G.] and after they told me they would no longer do any more well-being checks, I realized I would have to do it myself."

¶ 15 Defendant explained that she planned to drive from California to Illinois to take N.G. to a hospital. She claimed to not have a plan beyond having her son examined for signs of abuse. "The only thing I knew I needed to do was to get him to the hospital as soon as possible. Get some blood drawn and get a rape kit." Defendant left California on May 21, 2020. She could not remember the day she arrived but said that she had stayed at the Hansen's motel in Aurora.

¶ 16 Defendant explained her sense of urgency came from her belief that "everything was escalating." She had thought of taking N.G. to the police first but reasoned that hospital personnel would contact the police afterward. She explored the area and determined that Rush-Copley Medical Center was the closest to her motel and practiced driving to it. Defendant stated that she had timed the drive to eight minutes and had made several drives past Guyton's house to formulate her plan.

¶ 17 Defendant told deputies that she had been to the property the day before to "figure out how I was gonna get my son out of there." She explained that she wanted to familiarize herself with the house and surrounding area. She hoped to identify where N.G. might be held within the home and find the quickest ways to "get in there and get out quickly." Defendant explained to deputies that she had recorded her reconnaissance by taping a cellphone onto her baseball cap.

¶ 18 The next day, the day of the incident and the interview, defendant returned to the property. When she approached the door, Phillips yelled at her and went inside. Defendant told officers that she used a utility knife to cut through the screen on the door to gain entrance. Phillips retreated upstairs and defendant followed her. She pointed the handgun she had brought at Phillips in hopes that it would stop Phillips from approaching her.

¶ 19 Defendant claimed that she brought weapons to protect herself. She did not want to hurt anyone but needed to defend herself. For example, she pointed a gun at Phillips to keep her from approaching defendant. "If I wanted to kill her that would have been the time I could have literally shot her in the face. I could have shot her [***] I didn't want to shoot her. That was to protect me because she was coming towards me." Defendant did not mention striking Phillips with a baseball bat or cutting/biting her arm.

¶ 20 Turning to Guyton, defendant stated that he attacked her. To defend herself, she "poked" him several times with the box cutter "so he would stay the heck away from me as opposed to using the gun." When asked if she realized that she could have caused great bodily harm to Guyton, she said she did not realize it. She was only trying to protect herself and her son. As with her description of conflict with Phillips, defendant again stated that she had opportunity to shoot Guyton and did not.

¶ 21 When d...