People v. Lattimore
| Decision Date | 02 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 1–09–3238.,1–09–3238. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.James LATTIMORE, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, Deputy Defender (Rachel Moran, Assistant Appellate Defender), Chicago, for Appellant.Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney (Alan J. Spellberg, Brian Hodes, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), Chicago, for Appellee.
¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant James Lattimore was convicted of aggravated battery and retail theft. 720 ILCS 5/12–4(b)(15), 16A–3(a), 16A–10(2) (West 2008). After a hearing on aggravation and mitigation, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years of mental health probation and assessed fines, fees, and costs in the amount of $555. Defendant filed a posttrial motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, defendant challenges only the conviction for aggravated battery. Defendant argues, first, that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that defendant “knowingly” caused bodily harm to a security guard, (2) that defendant “struck” a security guard “about the body,” and (3) that the security guard was a “merchant” pursuant to section 12–4(b)(15) of the Criminal Code of 1961. 720 ILCS 5/12–4(b)(15) (West 2008). For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 2 Second, defendant argues that the trial court erred by assessing certain fines, fees, and costs and failing to credit defendant for days served in presentence custody. For the following reasons, we order defendant's fines and fees reduced by $250 from $555 to $305, and order that his mittimus be corrected accordingly.
¶ 5 The incident that resulted in the charges took place on November 25, 2008. On December 23, 2008, a grand jury indicted defendant for robbery, aggravated battery, and retail theft. The aggravated battery count charges that defendant:
“in committing a battery, knowingly and without legal justification caused bodily harm to James Lee, to wit: struck James Lee about the body, knowing him to be a merchant, to wit: an employee of Family Dollar Store, who was detaining James Lattimore for an alleged commission of retail theft, in violation of.” See 720 ILCS 5/12–4(b)(15) (West 2008).
Since the retail theft count is not at issue in this appeal, we do not set it forth here.
¶ 7 At a bench trial that commenced on September 14, 2009, the State called Tara Lynn Jones as a witness. Jones testified that she worked as a retail assistant manager for the Family Dollar Store on Laramie Avenue in Chicago, a retail mercantile establishment licensed to do business in the State of Illinois. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on November 25, 2008, she was standing in the front, inside of the store, when she observed defendant pick up some AXE deodorant body spray and then move toward the store exit. Jones alerted her boss, Marilyn Langford, who notified James Lee, a security guard.
¶ 8 Jones observed defendant as he passed the last cash register on his way to the exit without paying for any merchandise. Jones testified that she asked defendant to return the merchandise and defendant claimed “he didn't have anything.” Jones was then joined by Langford, Lee, and other store personnel at the front of the store. Jones testified defendant then claimed that he “only had one,” and gave them a single body-spray canister. Jones testified defendant said, “I ain't going to jail,” and attempted to exit the store. Lee blocked defendant's path. Defendant then attempted “to push his way out the front door” as Lee and other store personnel struggled with defendant and brought him into the store's security office. Once inside the security office, defendant continued to struggle with Lee and other store personnel, and three more body-spray canisters fell out of his shirt. Jones testified that she took possession of the fallen canisters and called the police.
¶ 9 Jones testified that defendant then attempted to leave the security office “a couple of times,” including running toward the front exit, back into the store toward the merchandise, and toward a back door located inside the security office. Jones was asked if anyone was injured during the time store personnel struggled with defendant. She testified:
By the time the police arrived, Lee and another Family Dollar Store employee forced defendant to the ground. Jones then printed a receipt for police indicating that the pretax retail price of each body spray was $4.50, for a total of $18.
¶ 10 The State played video recordings from the Family Dollar Store's security cameras for the trial court. Jones described the images displayed on the recordings as they were played. She testified that the store's security cameras face the cash registers and the front door on the inside of the store. There are no security cameras inside the security office or covering the area where the deodorant products are displayed. Jones testified that these recordings show defendant repeatedly attempting to leave the store and resisting store personnel.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, Jones admitted that she did not observe Lee become injured. She testified that she learned of Lee's injury only when Lee described how he became injured following the “battling” between Lee and defendant.
¶ 12 The State then called James Lee as a witness on its behalf. Lee testified that, on November 25, 2008, he was employed by Metro One Security and was assigned to work at the Family Dollar Store on Laramie Avenue. Lee wore black uniform pants, a black jersey, and a hooded three-quarter length winter coat with the word “security” printed in large letters on the back of the coat and “Metro Loss Prevention” on the front breast.
¶ 13 Lee testified that at approximately 4:30 p.m. he heard someone calling his name from the front of the store. He then rushed to the front of the store and observed other Family Dollar Store employees speaking with defendant. He then blocked defendant from moving toward the front door “to prevent him from escaping.” Lee testified that as defendant tried to move to the front door, “there was a little contact” between himself and defendant. He then attempted to restrain defendant by pushing him toward the door of the security office. Lee testified that defendant was “fighting” him. After a “tussle” and once he was assisted by other store personnel, Lee was able to force defendant into the security office. Lee testified that defendant would not stay in the security office and immediately left, and Lee “wrestle[d] him back towards the [security office] door.” They continued to “wrestle” once he brought defendant back into the security office.
¶ 14 Lee testified that defendant said “I'm not going to jail,” and attempted to leave through the security office's back door. Defendant's path to the back door was blocked by merchandise that had been stacked on top of platform carts used to transport merchandise, known as “U-boats.” Lee testified that defendant was “damaging” the merchandise or “stock” by “bust [ing] right into it” in his attempt to maneuver to the back door. Lee was then asked if defendant “came into contact with” him during this encounter. Lee testified as follows:
Lee testified he felt “excruciating pain” after his right shoulder struck the U-boat. Defendant continued to struggle with Lee, and other store personnel helped Lee subdue defendant on the security office floor.
¶ 15 On cross-examination, Lee admitted that he never went to the hospital or received medical treatment for his shoulder following this incident. Lee also admitted that he did not mention this injury in his incident report.
¶ 16 On redirect examination, Lee testified that the Family Dollar Store filed a complaint on November 25, 2008, for battery and retail theft with the police, and the battery referred to the shoulder injury Lee sustained during the incident with defendant. Lee testified that the injury was not caused by Lee's grabbing defendant, but because of defendant's reaction to Lee's grabbing.
¶ 17 The State introduced the Family Dollar Store's security video recording from November 25, 2008, photographs of the merchandise found on defendant, the receipt created by Jones, and a certified statement of defendant's prior retail theft conviction on February 2, 2006, referred to as case number 05–C4–41377–01. These exhibits were offered into evidence without objection. The State then rested.
¶ 18 Defendant then moved for a directed finding of not guilty on the robbery and aggravated battery charges, but not on the retail theft charge. The trial court granted defendant's motion with respect to the robbery charge, since defendant did not take the property from Lee by use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. With respect to the aggravated battery charge, defendant argued that the State presented testimony that Lee put “his hands on” defendant and then they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Reese
...prior prosecution on the same facts could be proved by resort to the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Lattimore, 2011 IL App (1st) 093238, ¶ 71, 353 Ill.Dec. 433, 955 N.E.2d 1244. Furthermore, we disagree with defendant that the variance in this case materially misled ......
-
People v. Jovan A. (In re Angeles)
...deprive the owner of her bicycle (720 ILCS 5/16–1(a)(1)(A) (West 2010)), which presents disputed questions of fact. People v. Lattimore, 2011 IL App (1st) 093238, ¶ 36, 353 Ill.Dec. 433, 955 N.E.2d 1244 (and cases cited therein). ¶ 70 Ultimately, respondent is attacking the trial court's de......
-
People v. N.H. (In re N.H.)
...Maxey, 2015 IL App (1st) 140036, ¶ 46, 401 Ill.Dec. 119, 49 N.E.3d 507 (appellate court ordered the mittimus corrected); People v. Lattimore, 2011 IL App (1st) 093238, ¶ 117, 353 Ill.Dec. 433, 955 N.E.2d 1244 (same); People v. Jones, 397 Ill.App.3d 651, 656, 336 Ill.Dec. 912, 921 N.E.2d 768......
-
People v. Palen
...show his intent, the jury was entitled to infer defendant's intent to commit residential burglary from his conduct. See People v. Lattimore, 2011 IL App (1st) 093238, ¶ 44, 353 Ill.Dec. 433, 955 N.E.2d 1244 (intent may be inferred from the defendant's conduct surrounding the act and from th......