People v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 03 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-16-0729,4-16-0729 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIXTO MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County
Honorable Scott D. Drazewski, Judge Presiding.
Justices Holder White and Knecht concurred in the judgment.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions, finding the Sex Offender Registration Act is not unconstitutional and the circuit clerk did not improperly impose certain fines. The appellate court modified defendant's sentence to reflect the reduction in his child-pornography fines.
¶ 2 In February 2016, the trial court found defendant, Sixto Martinez, guilty of six counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and three counts of child pornography. The court sentenced defendant to four years in prison on one count of child pornography, to be served consecutively to concurrent terms of three years in prison on the remaining counts. The court also imposed various fines and fees and noted defendant was required to register as a sex offender.
¶ 3 On appeal, defendant argues (1) the Sex Offender Registration Act (Registration Act) (730 ILCS 150/1 to 12 (West 2014)) is unconstitutional, (2) his child-pornography fines should be reduced, and (3) the circuit clerk improperly imposed certain fines. We affirm as modified.
¶ 5 In October 2014, a grand jury indicted defendant on six counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (counts I to VI) (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 2014)), alleging he knowingly committed acts of sexual penetration with S.M., involving defendant's penis and the anus and/or mouth of S.M., when S.M. was at least 13 years of age but under 17 years of age, and defendant was at least five years older than S.M.
¶ 6 In February 2015, a grand jury indicted defendant on two additional counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (counts VII and VIII) (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 2014)). The grand jury also indicted defendant on eight counts of criminal sexual assault (counts IX to XVI) (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(1) (West 2014)), alleging he knowingly committed acts of sexual penetration with S.M., said acts involving defendant's penis and the mouth and/or anus of S.M., and the acts were committed with the use of force or threat of force.
¶ 7 A grand jury later indicted defendant on three counts of child pornography (counts XVII to XIX) (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(2), (a)(6) (West 2014)), alleging he, with the knowledge of the content thereof, possessed and/or disseminated a photograph or other similar visual reproduction or depiction by computer of S.M., whom he reasonably should have known to be under the age of 18, in a setting involving the lewd exhibition of S.M.'s unclothed genitals. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
¶ 8 In February 2016, defendant's bench trial commenced. Dora M. testified she is the mother of S.M., who was born in May 1999. In 2014, Dora noticed changes in S.M.'s behavior at home, stating he would stay up late or leave for the weekend. She also noticed S.M.coming home with gifts, including clothes, a watch, and shoes. In September 2014, Dora found in her house a pair of underwear with the word "Papi." She later discovered a text message of "Papi" on S.M.'s phone.
¶ 9 S.M. testified he was 16 years old at the time of the trial. In September 2013, when he was 14 years old, S.M. joined "adultfriendfinder.com," which is "an adult site where you find partners, typically for sexual interactions." Because the website requires users to be 18 years old, S.M. lied about his age. S.M. uploaded photographs to his profile, including "a nude picture of [his] torso" and his genitalia, and used the name "Samster696969" as his profile identification. "A week or so" after being on the website, he received a message from defendant. The two sent messages to each other and corresponded through other websites. S.M. initially told defendant he was 16 years old and later told him he was 14 years old. Defendant told him it was "okay as long as they don't find out."
¶ 10 "A few weeks" after their first communication, S.M. and defendant agreed to meet at a movie theater. After S.M. did not show up because he realized what he "was doing was wrong at that time," defendant "was very angered" and said S.M. had to "make it up to him." The two planned another meeting, and defendant picked him up and went to a hotel in Bloomington on October 12, 2013. Defendant went inside by himself to rent the room, while S.M. stayed in the car. After going to the room and conversing, defendant started touching S.M., who felt uncomfortable and attempted to leave. Defendant "firmly grasped" S.M.'s wrist and pulled him back. When S.M. "started begging" defendant that he did not want "to do this anymore," defendant demanded he be quiet and covered S.M.'s mouth with his hand. Defendant then "started slowly taking off [their] clothing." After engaging in kissing, defendant "pushed and shoved his genitalia forcefully into [S.M.'s] mouth." Once the oral sex was complete,defendant pushed S.M. onto the bed and started to perform anal sex. S.M. pleaded with him to stop, but defendant continued for "around five minutes."
¶ 11 Although defendant told S.M. he would take him home, they went to defendant's house in Lafayette, Indiana. Once they arrived, defendant pulled him out of the car and into the house, where defendant "forcefully" removed their clothes. Defendant "forced [S.M.] to perform oral sex" and then "turned [S.M.] around to perform anal sex." S.M. "was begging for him to stop," but defendant refused and told him to cooperate. During the anal sex, S.M. stated he felt a sharp object, which he assumed was knife, digging into his lower back. After defendant locked him in the bathroom, S.M. cleaned up blood from his back. The next morning, defendant told S.M. he would take him home. He also stated the sex acts would continue and he would provide gifts to S.M.
¶ 12 On November 10, 2013, defendant and S.M. scheduled a meeting, and defendant picked him up and went to a motel. After showering separately, S.M. performed oral sex on defendant and then defendant inserted his penis in S.M.'s anus. S.M. testified he went to the motel unwillingly because defendant threatened to come to his house and shoot the person who opened the door. S.M. stated he was scared of defendant because he threatened to kill S.M. and members of S.M.'s family.
¶ 13 In January 2014, defendant picked up S.M. and went to the mall in Bloomington. S.M. stated he received a gift of clothing at that time, but they did not have any sexual contact. S.M. testified defendant took him to Indiana approximately four times, and they engaged in sexual contact on each occasion. S.M. stated he hid notes at defendant's house "out of desperation" and in hopes defendant's children would "help" S.M.
¶ 14 On May 10, 2014, defendant picked up S.M. and they went to a hotel. Aftershowering separately, they started kissing. S.M. then "had to perform oral sex." Then, defendant penetrated S.M.'s anus with his penis. After spending the night in the hotel, defendant took S.M. home.
¶ 15 S.M. testified they went to the same hotel on May 25, 2014. Again, S.M. performed oral sex on defendant and then defendant penetrated S.M.'s anus with his penis. S.M. stated defendant "would wake up throughout the night and then he would do the same thing."
¶ 16 S.M. stated he had contact with defendant in June, July, and August 2014. At the July meeting, defendant stayed at S.M.'s house. When S.M.'s parents saw a vehicle in the driveway, S.M. "freaked out" and told them it was a friend's car. Defendant refused to leave, and S.M. "decided that the only way to get rid of him was to bring him" through the house. When S.M. brought defendant inside, S.M. stated he "was sexually abused." After defendant left, S.M. noticed he had left a pair of thong underwear.
¶ 17 Throughout the time period in which defendant and S.M. were communicating, S.M. received his "incentives," including clothing, cash, and a watch. They also sent each other "photographs of each other's bodies." S.M. sent pictures of his genitalia after he told defendant he was 14 years old. Defendant also had S.M. take pictures of S.M.'s genitalia while at the hotel. S.M. testified his last contact with defendant occurred in August 2014, after his mother found text messages on his phone.
¶ 18 On cross-examination, S.M. stated he sent text messages to defendant and said he loved him "quite a bit." S.M. admitted lying to get on the "friend finder" website, knew the site had to do with sex, and put on his profile that he was looking for a one-night stand. When asked why he did not leave defendant's house when defendant was asleep, S.M. stated he was scared of how he would get home.
¶ 19 Bloomington police detective Michael Burns testified he investigated a claim of the sexual abuse of S.M. in September 2014. He learned defendant was born in August 1966 and, in October 2014, he was 48 years old. Police arrested defendant on October 2, 2014, and a search of his cell phone revealed two nude photographs of S.M.
¶ 20 Defendant testified on his own behalf and stated he was 49 years old. He denied owning a thong. Defendant brought S.M. to Indiana four to five times, and they engaged in sexual relations. They also engaged in sexual relations at S.M.'s house and at hotels. Defendant stated S.M. provided four different ages during their relationship, with the oldest being 23 years old. When asked his age before the first hotel encounter, S.M. said he was 18 years old. Defendant stated he never threatened S.M. or his family and never cut him with a knife.
¶ 21 Defendant stated S.M. often...
To continue reading
Request your trial