People v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 27 December 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1-16-1267,1-16-1267
• Citation: 138 N.E.3d 799,435 Ill.Dec. 185,2018 IL App (1st) 161267
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jasper LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2018 IL App (1st) 161267
138 N.E.3d 799
435 Ill.Dec. 185

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jasper LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-16-1267

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FOURTH DIVISION.

Opinion filed December 27, 2018

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Kathryn L. Oberer, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Joseph Alexander, and Elliott Englander, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

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

435 Ill.Dec. 190

¶ 1 After a jury trial, defendant Jasper Lawrence was convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and sentenced

138 N.E.3d 805

435 Ill.Dec. 191

to seven years with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).

¶ 2 On this appeal, defendant claims, first, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the gun seized from him because police officers arrested him without probable cause. Second, he claims that the trial court coerced a guilty verdict by telling the jurors to continue to deliberate after the jurors sent out a note indicating that they were deadlocked. Third, defendant asks this court to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court either relied on an incorrect sentencing range or impermissibly enhanced his sentence by using an element of the offense also as an aggravating factor.

¶ 3 For the following reasons, we do not find these claims persuasive and affirm his conviction and sentence.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Before trial, defendant moved to quash his arrest and suppress the gun seized from him, claiming that, while the traffic stop of the vehicle (in which he was a passenger) was a valid stop when the stop began, the stop exceeded its permissible scope and, thus, resulted in his illegal arrest.

¶ 6 At the subsequent suppression hearing held on August 31, 2015, police officer Gregory Klimaszewski testified that he and his partner, Officer Lawrence Willems, personally observed a vehicle commit a traffic violation. Specifically, at 11:30 p.m. on March 25, 2015, they observed a silver Buick that failed to stop at a red light before making a right turn. After Officer Willems activated the police vehicle's lights and siren, the driver of the Buick complied and pulled over. The vehicle held two occupants: (1) the driver and (2) defendant, who was in the front passenger seat. Officer Willhems approached the driver's side on foot, while Officer Klimaszewski approached the passenger side of the vehicle. The area was well lit with streetlights, Observing that the Buick's windows were rolled up, Officer Klimaszewski shined his flashlight into the vehicle and observed that defendant was "moving around" with a handgun sticking out of the front pocket of his hooded sweatshirt. Officer Klimaszewski testified that he was able to observe "[a]lmost the entire gun," including "the grip, the back handle" and "most of the [gun's] barrel." At the hearing, he described the gun as a small chrome-colored, .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Officer Klimaszewski could not recall if the Buick's windows were tinted, but he testified that the silver color of the gun contrasted with the black color of defendant's sweatshirt and that he could observe the gun while standing a foot away from the vehicle.

¶ 7 Officer Klimaszewski testified that he informed his partner that he had observed a gun, he withdrew his own gun and directed defendant to exit the vehicle, and defendant complied. After defendant exited, Officer Klimaszewski took possession of the handgun and placed defendant under arrest.

¶ 8 During the argument on the suppression motion, defense counsel argued primarily that the window was rolled up and tinted, and thus, the officer's testimony was unbelievable. The trial court did not find this argument persuasive, observing that the court had before it only the uncontroverted testimony of the officer about what he observed. Thus, it denied the motion.

¶ 9 On December 14, 2015, defendant moved to reconsider on the ground that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant, since possessing a firearm is not, by itself, a crime. The trial court permitted defendant to reopen testimony,

138 N.E.3d 806

435 Ill.Dec. 192

and on January 25, 2016, the suppression hearing resumed.

¶ 10 Officer Klimaszewski testified that, as he took possession of the gun from defendant, defendant stated, "it's a lighter, not a handgun." Officer Klimaszewski then handed the gun to his partner, Officer Willems, who determined that the gun was loaded. Officer Klimaszewski then handcuffed defendant and placed him in the back of a police vehicle. Other officers drove defendant to the police station, which was "[a]bout eight blocks" from where the initial stop occurred. When Officer Klimaszewski arrived at the police station, he learned that defendant (1) lacked a firearm owner's identification (FOID) card, (2) lacked a concealed carry permit, and (3) had a prior felony conviction. However, Officer Klimaszewski did not know these facts when he arrested defendant.

¶ 11 After listening again to argument on the suppression motion, the trial court denied the motion, finding that

"it would be unreasonable * * * to require that before moving further, [the officers] needed to keep the [d]efendant on the scene until they looked into the fact that he didn't have a Concealed Carry or a FOID, based on the untruth told to the police, the lie that it was not, in fact, a lighter."

Thus, the trial court found that it was reasonable for the officers to "take [defendant] eight blocks away to do a further investigation."

¶ 12 Prior to the start of trial, the trial court informed defendant that he was charged with a Class 2 felony and that the sentencing range for that charge was three to seven years. The trial court further informed defendant that, the State "could ask, if [defendant was] convicted, for an extended term of 7 to 14 years, [and] fines up to $25,000." The trial court then asked defendant: "You understand that's a range that you'd be facing, that's 3 to 14 years if you're convicted? Yes." Although the record does not indicate defendant's response, the trial court immediately stated "[a]ll right," thereby indicating that defendant had indicated he understood. The court then confirmed that defense counsel had communicated the State's plea offer and that defendant chose to reject it. The trial court asked if that was correct, and defendant responded "[y]es, ma'am." The trial court then found "that the Defendant, Mr. Lawrence, understands the penalties that he faces."

¶ 13 At trial, Officer Klimaszewski testified substantially the same as he had during the pretrial suppression hearing, and his partner, Officer Willems, substantially corroborated him, testifying that he also heard defendant state that it was not a gun, but a lighter. After being qualified as an expert in firearm examination, Sergeant Kenneth Krok testified that he examined the gun, and found that it was a fully operational .25-caliber pistol and definitely "not a lighter."

¶ 14 The parties stipulated that, at the time of the offense, defendant had a prior qualifying conviction, and the State rested. Defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.

¶ 15 Defendant testified that he was a passenger in the Buick on March 25, 2015, but that neither he nor the driver had a gun. Defendant testified that the police officers stated that they pulled the vehicle over because it had tinted windows, that the vehicle did, in fact, have tinted windows, and that a person could not see through the windows at night from outside the vehicle. Defendant admitted that he was wearing a black sweatshirt with a large front pocket, that a silver gun would contrast with a black sweatshirt, that he was a convicted felon, and that he knew he could not legally possess a gun.

138 N.E.3d 807

435 Ill.Dec. 193

¶ 16 In rebuttal, the State called Officer Daniel Vasquez, who was patrolling the same area with his partner, Officer Doherty. Officer Vasquez testified that they observed the traffic violation and pulled over to assist. Officer Vasquez testified that he overheard Officer Klimaszewski yell "gun" and also overheard defendant state "it was not a gun, it was a lighter."

¶ 17 After hearing closing arguments and jury instructions, the jury began deliberating at 10:30 a.m. on January 27, 2016. At 1:30 p.m., the jury sent out a note with two questions. The first question asked: "We are at 9 guilty 3 not guilty. What next?" The second question asked: "Can we get the testimony of Officer Klimaszewski and Officer Willems?"

¶ 18 The trial court discussed the note with the attorneys from both sides and informed them that, with respect to the first question, it was going to answer, "Please continue to deliberate." Defense counsel agreed,...