People v. Lewis
| Docket Number | 4-21-0273 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2022 |
| Citation | 2022 IL App (4th) 210273 U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BILLY D. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 20CF1329 Honorable Jason M. Bohm, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err by admitting the description of the incident on the surveillance video by a State witness who lacked firsthand knowledge of the incident and the court's preliminary inquiry into defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims was adequate.
¶ 2 In November 2020, the State charged defendant, Billy D Lewis, by information with one count of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2020)). In February 2021, the State filed a second count of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(f)(1) (West 2020)). After a March 2021 jury trial, the jury found defendant guilty of both charges. Defense counsel filed a motion for acquittal or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial, arguing, inter alia, the trial court erred by allowing the State's witness Brandon Smith-LaGrone, to testify regarding what was contained in the surveillance video that Smith-LaGrone had not witnessed firsthand. At a joint April 2021 hearing, the Champaign County circuit court denied defense counsel's motion and sentenced defendant to eight years' imprisonment. Thereafter, defendant filed pro se a motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In May 2021, the court conducted an inquiry under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). It found the appointment of new counsel was not warranted and denied defendant's claims.
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, asserting the trial court erred by (1) allowing Smith-LaGrone to narrate the contents of a surveillance video when he had no personal knowledge of the events in the video and (2) failing to conduct an adequate Krankel inquiry into defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding a conflict of interest. We affirm.
¶ 5 The November 2020 aggravated battery charge alleged defendant, while on or about the parking lot of the C-U At Home (Home), a public way, knowingly caused bodily harm to Ricky Shivers, in that defendant struck Shivers on or about the head and arms with a pipe. See 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2020). The February 2021 aggravated battery charge alleged defendant, while using a metal pipe, a deadly weapon, knowingly caused bodily harm to Shivers, in that he struck Shivers on or about the head and arms with a metal bar or pipe. See 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(f)(1) (West 2020).
¶ 6 Before trial, defendant filed a "Motion for Bar Association Attorney." In the motion, defendant argued, inter alia, the following:
"3. That, presently public defender's [sic] are assigned to a Court-room [sic] rather than a Defendant, and Consequently, a Change of Courtroom or judge disrupts any Continuity of defense or tactics, also where a Conflict of interest occurs between the Defendant and the Champaign County Public Defender's office [ ] Defendant must be given an attorney outside of the Champaign County public Defender's office to have a fair representation on his particular matter.
People v. Smith, 230 N.E.2d 169 (Ill. 1967)." Defendant also filed pro se an ex parte motion raising allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. On January 28, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's pro se motions. The court described the motions and defendant's allegations and informed defendant it would be holding a "Krankel hearing" on his claims against his attorney. The court allowed defendant to explain his complaints against trial counsel. The court asked some follow up questions about defendant's statements and asked defendant if there was anything else he wanted to say about his motions. Defendant replied in the negative, and the court asked some questions of defense counsel. The court also asked for defendant's criminal history. The matter of a conflict of interest was never specifically addressed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied defendant's pro se motions.
¶ 7 In March 2021, the trial court held a jury trial on the charges. The State presented the testimony of (1) Smith-LaGrone, a Home employee; (2) Corey Barnes, a Champaign police officer; and (3) Shivers, the victim. Defendant did not present any evidence. Only the evidence relevant to the issues on appeal follows.
¶ 8 Smith-LaGrone testified the Home provided resources and assistance to the less fortunate and, at night, was a homeless shelter for men. He explained the Home's parking lot was for the public and anyone could drive up to the Home. Around 8:15 p.m. on November 22, 2020, Smith-LaGrone was inside the Home working when he learned of an altercation in the parking lot. He went outside and observed Shivers had an open wound on his left arm. Smith-LaGrone knew Shivers who, at that time, had been coming to the Home for six months. Smith-LaGrone also knew defendant, who had a nickname of G-Rock. Smith-LaGrone had known defendant for seven months. Defendant was not present when Smith-LaGrone observed Shivers's injury.
¶ 9 When the police arrived, they asked if the Home had a surveillance video. Smith-LaGrone testified the Home had nine security cameras and he could observe video from those cameras on a monitor. At the time of the incident, the surveillance system was working properly. Smith-LaGrone was able to locate the incident on the surveillance video system. When the prosecutor asked Smith-LaGrone to describe what he saw on the video, defense counsel objected. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed Smith-LaGrone to testify what he observed on the video. He described the incident and identified the participants. Smith-LaGrone did not know how to transfer a copy of the surveillance video to the police, so he recorded the surveillance video on the monitor with his cellular telephone (cellphone). Smith-LaGrone e-mailed the video from his cellphone to his work e-mail, and then he e-mailed the video from his work e-mail to the police. Smith-LaGrone admitted he did not provide the police with a video of the entire incident because the file was too big to be e-mailed. Smith-LaGrone recorded only "the pertinent details." When the prosecutor sought admission of the surveillance video, defense counsel objected. The court overruled the objection, and the prosecutor played the video, which was 59 seconds long. Smith-LaGrone identified defendant, Shivers, and Adam Brant, a bystander, on the video.
¶ 10 After hearing the parties' arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of both counts of aggravated battery. In March 2021, defendant filed pro se a posttrial motion asserting (1) the State's evidence was insufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach defendant with his prior conviction for criminal damage to property which resulted in defendant deciding not to testify, (3) the court erred by allowing Smith-LaGrone to testify about what was depicted in the surveillance video, (4) the prosecutor improperly influenced the witnesses by pointing defendant out in the surveillance video multiple times, (5) the court erred by admitting the video because Smith-LaGrone tampered with it, and (6) the court erred by denying defendant's motions for a directed verdict. Defense counsel filed a timely posttrial motion raising the same claims.
¶ 11 In April 2021, the trial court held a joint hearing on defense counsel's posttrial motion and sentencing. The court first denied defendant's posttrial motion and then sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment for aggravated battery on a public way. Thereafter, defendant filed pro se a motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting trial counsel's performance was deficient for not objecting to prosecutorial errors. The motion also asserted he should be appointed counsel outside the public defender's office.
¶ 12 On May 7, 2021, the trial court held a Krankel inquiry. The court began by asking defendant about his concerns regarding defense counsel. After defendant voiced his concerns about defense counsel's representation of him, the court then asked defendant if there were any other issues, and defendant replied in the negative. The court did not specifically ask about a conflict of interest. After hearing defendant's complaint, the court found no basis for ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶ 13 On May 7, 2021, defendant filed his timely notice of appeal in sufficient compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Mar. 12, 2021). Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction of defendant's conviction and sentence under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).
¶ 15 A. Surveillance Video ¶ 16 Defendant first asserts the trial court erred by allowing Smith-LaGrone to narrate the contents of the surveillance video when he had no personal knowledge of the events portrayed in the video. Defendant acknowledges Smith-LaGrone could provide lay opinion identification testimony because he was familiar with defendant, Shivers, and others seen in the video. However, defendant appears to object to Smith-LaGrone's description of what he observed on the video beyond the people's identity in establishing the foundation for the admission of the surveillance video. The State contends the court did not err because...
To continue reading
Request your trial