People v. Littleton

Decision Date26 June 2014
Docket NumberNo. 1–12–1950.,1–12–1950.
Citation14 N.E.3d 555
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ernest LITTLETON, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Rachel M. Kindstrand, all of State Appellate Defender‘s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Mary P. Needham, and Jocelyn M. Schieve, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice EPSTEIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Ernest Littleton was found guilty of the robbery of Audrey Schenck and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. Defendant raises several issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other crimes; (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony that violated the rule against hearsay and the confrontation clause; (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to make a speedy trial demand and failing to move to suppress eyewitness identifications; and (4) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that evidence of defendant's pattern of robbing elderly women on the southwest side of Chicago was properly admitted to prove his modus operandi. While inadmissible hearsay was introduced at defendant's trial, we find that the admission of that testimony was harmless. We further find that defendant's attorney did not render ineffective assistance in failing to make fruitless motions and that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm defendant's conviction.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant was indicted in the November 17, 2008, robbery of Dorothy Jokubaitis and the December 4, 2008, robbery of Audrey Schenck. He was first tried in the Jokubaitis robbery and was acquitted. Defendant was then tried in the Schenck robbery. Schenck, however, had died before trial. The trial court admitted Schenck's testimony from the Jokubaitis trial as evidence in the Schenck trial.

¶ 4 Pretrial

¶ 5 The State moved to admit other-crimes evidence, specifically, evidence of Jokubaitis' robbery, as well as evidence of defendant's 1994 robberies of Rosella Defenbaugh and Lucille Zaye and 1997 robberies of Ana Mireles and Mary Moore. The State argued that the evidence would show defendant's modus operandi, identity, and a common scheme or design. Defendant responded that the evidence was unduly prejudicial, and not probative of the State's proffered reasons for admitting the evidence. The trial court granted the State's motion, finding that the evidence would not be unfairly prejudicial and would show “the absence of innocence of the state of mind, the presence of criminal intent, modus operandi, intent, identity, and * * * a common scheme and design.”

¶ 6 The State also filed a motion to admit prior testimony by four deceased witnesses pursuant to section 115–10.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115–10.4 (West 2010) ). In particular, the State sought to introduce transcripts of Schenck's testimony in the Jokubaitis case, as well as Defenbaugh's, Zaye's, and Moore's preliminary hearing testimony in their respective cases. The trial court granted the State's motion with respect to Schenck's testimony, but denied it with respect to the transcripts of Defenbaugh's, Zaye's, and Moore's testimony.

¶ 7 Trial—Robbery and Theft of Audrey Schenck

¶ 8 The State presented a certified copy of Schenck's death certificate before reading her testimony from the Jokubaitis trial into the record. Schenck testified that, on the morning of December 4, 2008, she drove to a Jewel grocery store at 6107 South Archer Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. She returned to her apartment building at 5839 South Harlem Avenue, noticing that the parking gate was broken and would not close. Schenck parked her car and was retrieving her groceries from her backseat when a man grabbed her throat and snatched her purse from her left shoulder. The man pulled her out of the car and pushed her toward the ground before fleeing. Schenck recalled that the man wore a dark jacket with a hood and had a dark complexion, but she remembered no other details.

¶ 9 Dawn Evans, an employee in Schenck's apartment complex, testified that she saw Schenck staggering and heard her say, [H]e's got my purse.” She followed the man until he went around a fence and into an adjacent parking lot. The robber held up the purse and said, [Y]ou want this,” to which Evans said, “Yes.” The robber then said, [N]a,” and fled in a white minivan. Evans testified that a photograph of the rear of defendant's car resembled the car she saw the robber enter that day. She provided police with a description of the offender, including that he wore a brown parka. Evans identified defendant as the robber in court.

¶ 10 Officer Foley testified that, on January 4, 2009, he responded to a call regarding a suspicious black male driving a white sport utility vehicle (SUV) near 58th Street and Neva Avenue. Foley stopped the SUV and recorded defendant's name, address, date of birth, and license number. He further testified that he was aware of a pattern of robberies involving a black male in his thirties or forties, and defendant “strongly resembled” the suspect. Foley relayed this information to his partner, Officer Prendkowski.

¶ 11 Officer Kevin Prendkowski testified that, after speaking with Officer Foley, he spoke with Detective Gary Wisniewski about arranging a photo array in relation to the pattern of robberies. He later learned from Wisniewski that a positive photo array identification had been made. On January 18, 2009, Prendkowski saw defendant driving a white Jeep in a grocery store parking lot at 63rd Street and Narragansett Avenue. Prendkowski followed defendant, who, in turn, was following a car driven by an elderly woman. Defendant lost track of the woman and pounded his hands on the steering wheel. Defendant then returned to the grocery store parking lot, where he drove in circles. Other officers arrived and arrested defendant. When defendant exited his vehicle, he was wearing a brown puffy coat with white fur around the hood.

¶ 12 Detective Wisniewski testified that, on January 13, 2009, he showed a photo array to Dawn Evans, who identified defendant as Schenck's robber. After defendant's arrest on January 18, 2009, Evans viewed a lineup and identified defendant as the robber.

¶ 13 Other–Crimes Evidence—2008 Robbery of Jokubaitis

¶ 14 The State presented Dorothy Jokubaitis as a witness over defendant's objection. She testified that, on November 17, 2008, she went to the Jewel at 6107 South Archer Avenue. As she drove home, she noticed a van following her. After she retrieved the groceries from the trunk and backseat, she turned and saw a man in her garage standing only a foot away. The man said, “Give me your purse.” A struggle ensued. Jokubaitis yelled for help, and the man punched her in the nose. She fell to the ground, and he fled with her purse and groceries. She was 68 years old at the time of the offense. She described the man to police as a black male, 35 to 40 years old, 5 feet 11 inches tall, wearing a cream-colored hat and brown jacket. She subsequently identified defendant in a lineup. She identified the defendant as the robber in court.

¶ 15 Other–Crimes Evidence—1997 Robberies of Moore and Mireles

¶ 16 Officer Guy Habiak testified regarding two 1997 robberies to which defendant pled guilty. He stated that, on February 2, 1997, he was assigned to the robberies of Mary Moore and Ana Mireles. Habiak spoke to Officers Sneathan and Deheer that day, who told him that, after responding to a robbery at 5132 South Kenneth Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, and receiving a description of a male black in a grey coat with a large black purse, they found and arrested defendant. Defendant had a purse, $44, a grey, hooded jacket, and a $7,500 “advertisement check” made payable to Ana Mireles in his possession.

¶ 17 Habiak spoke to Moore, who said that a black male wearing a grey jacket grabbed her on the way home from a bakery, knocked her down, and took her purse. Moore could not see the offender's face. Moore's niece, Jennifer Krikvana, told Habiak that she observed the robbery through her front window. Krikvana later identified defendant as the robber at a police station.

¶ 18 Habiak also spoke with 79–year–old Ana Mireles, who said that, as she was returning from the grocery store, a man knocked her down from behind and took her purse, which contained a $7,500 advertisement check. Mireles never saw the man's face.

¶ 19 Later that day, Habiak spoke with defendant, who, after being read his Miranda rights, admitted to robbing a woman of her purse at 5132 South Kenneth Avenue. Defendant admitted that the $7,500 check was from a robbery he had committed several days earlier, in which he knocked a woman down from behind and took her purse.

¶ 20 Other–Crimes Evidence—1994 Robberies of Defenbaugh and Zaye

¶ 21 Officer Howard Hatton testified regarding two 1994 robberies to which defendant pled guilty. Hatton spoke with Officer Contrarez, who stated that he curbed a light blue Oldsmobile that matched descriptions of a robber's car. Defendant stopped the car and fled on foot, but was eventually apprehended and found to have three sets of car keys.

¶ 22 Hatton spoke with 80–year–old Rosella Defenbaugh, who told him that, on August 10, 1994, she returned to her home from a trip to Edmar Foods, a grocery store, and parked in her garage. A black male exited a light blue car, entered her garage, knocked her to the ground, took her purse from inside her car, and fled. She subsequently identified defendant in a lineup.

¶ 23 Hatton also spoke with 77–year–old Lucille Zaye, who told him that, on August 12, 1994, she drove to the Edmar Foods parking lot, where a man knocked her to the ground, took...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2019
    ...must show that his trial attorney's performance was deficient." People v. Littleton , 2014 IL App (1st) 121950, ¶ 75, 383 Ill.Dec. 272, 14 N.E.3d 555. "[T]he defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction may have been the product of sound trial strate......
  • People v. Romero
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 24, 2018
    ...on the admission of evidence absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Littleton , 2014 IL App (1st) 121950, ¶ 49, 383 Ill.Dec. 272, 14 N.E.3d 555. "An abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no reasonable p......
  • People v. Drake
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 15, 2017
    ...unless the record clearly shows that the error was harmless. People v. Littleton , 2014 IL App (1st) 121950, ¶ 65, 383 Ill.Dec. 272, 14 N.E.3d 555. ¶ 27 Courts consider three factors in determining whether an error was harmless: (1) whether the error contributed to the conviction, (2) wheth......
  • People v. Strickland
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 28, 2019
    ...of defendant's trial, as the State acknowledges See, e.g., People v. Littleton , 2014 IL App (1st) 121950, ¶ 72, 383 Ill.Dec. 272, 14 N.E.3d 555 (declining to reach question of whether constitutional right of confrontation violated where any error was harmless). ¶ 69 In determining whether ......
  • 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