People v. Marzette
| Citation | 2023 IL App (4th) 220059 U |
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4-22-0059 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANFORD MARZETTE JR., 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 Winnebago County No. 18CF1813 Honorable Debra D. Schafer, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) sufficient evidence was presented to sustain defendant's convictions and to support a sentencing enhancement for the personal discharge of a firearm, (2) defendant did not establish plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel related to the other-crimes evidence presented at his trial and (3) defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel related to trial counsel's failure to call certain witnesses as part of the defense.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant, Sanford Marzette Jr. was found guilty of attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery and sentenced to 43 years' imprisonment. Defendant now appeals, challenging (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions and to support a sentencing enhancement, (2) the other-crimes evidence presented at his trial, and (3) his trial counsel's failure to call certain witnesses as part of the defense. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 5 In July 2018, a Winnebago County grand jury returned a bill of indictment charging defendant with four counts of attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1, 5/8-4(a) (West 2016)) (counts I through IV) and one count of aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)) (count V). The charges were based on a shooting that occurred on April 9 2017, and resulted in injuries to Matthew Lorr. It was alleged defendant and/or Miquan Sanders had discharged a firearm that resulted in Lorr's injuries. It was also alleged defendant was legally responsible for the conduct of Sanders. Count II included a sentencing enhancement for being armed with a firearm (id. § 8-4(c)(1)(B)), count III included a sentencing enhancement for personally discharging a firearm (id. § 8-4(c)(1)(C)), and count IV included a sentencing enhancement for personally discharging a firearm that proximately caused great bodily harm (id. § 8-4(c)(1)(D)).
¶ 6 Around the same time defendant was charged, Sanders was charged in a separate case with various criminal offenses for his involvement in the shooting of Lorr. According to an agreed statement of facts filed with this court, defendant and Sanders were represented by different appointed counsel in their respective cases, the State in each case was represented by the same counsel, and both cases proceeded simultaneously before Judge Debra Schaefer.
¶ 8 In May 2019, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce evidence of another crime at defendant's trial. Specifically, the State sought to introduce evidence of an armed robbery allegedly committed by defendant and Sanders a short distance away from, and around the same time as, the shooting of Lorr. The victims of that offense were Toni Thomas and Lavetta Tripp. The State asserted evidence of the armed robbery of Thomas and Tripp would be relevant to prove identity, opportunity, and proximity in time and place. Around the same time the motion was filed in defendant's case, the State filed a similar motion in Sanders's case.
¶ 9 In July 2019, defendant appeared before the trial court to schedule a hearing on the State's motion in limine. When discussing scheduling, defendant's counsel acknowledged there might be additional argument from Sanders's counsel. The court inquired if the issue was the same with respect to both defendants, to which the State responded in the affirmative. The court indicated it would conduct a joint hearing on the motion; neither side objected.
¶ 10 After scheduling the hearing on the State's motions in limine, defendant and Sanders prepared responses. Defendant's response was filed with the circuit clerk. Sanders's response was sent to the trial court and the State. Sanders's response was not, however, filed with the circuit clerk. Sanders's response is attached as an exhibit to the agreed statement of facts filed with this court. The response is not signed by Sanders's counsel. In the response, Sanders's counsel sets forth detailed facts about the armed robbery of Thomas and Tripp and the shooting of Lorr.
¶ 11 In August 2019, the trial court conducted the hearing on the State's motions in limine. At the commencement of the hearing, the court noted it had learned Sanders was "going to be pleading guilty," and it would be proceeding with the State's motion "and the response filed by the defense." The court then allowed the State and defendant's counsel to give lengthy proffers as to the facts of the armed robbery of Thomas and Tripp and the shooting of Lorr. The court also allowed the State and defendant's counsel to give oral arguments respectively in support of and against the motion. After hearing from the parties, the court took the matter under advisement, stating:
¶ 12 In September 2019, the trial court granted the State's motion in limine. In its oral pronouncement of its decision, the court stated:
¶ 13 According to the agreed statement of facts filed with this court, Sanders pleaded guilty "before [his response to the State's motion in limine] was filed," and the trial court, "[i]n deciding [the] motion in [defendant's] case, *** took into consideration [Sanders's] response to [the motion]."
¶ 15 During the August 2019 hearing on the State's motion in limine, defense counsel, during his proffer, discussed certain statements allegedly made to the police after the shooting of Lorr.
¶ 16 According to defense counsel, Jacob Price heard gunshots and witnessed a black male get out of a vehicle wearing a gray or white T-shirt and a black skullcap. Counsel noted Price did not give a description of "the driver." Price then "did a showup" that included defendant and Sanders. With respect to that showup, counsel asserted:
¶ 17 Defense counsel asserted Joaquin Haugabook stated he saw a black male wearing an orange and black hat and a light-colored shirt get out of a vehicle. Haugabook then did "a showup" that included defendant and Sanders. As to that showup, counsel asserted Haugabook "did not recognize either suspect" and had "never seen them before."
¶ 18 Defense counsel asserted Quintrell Scott stated he was in the vehicle in which Lorr was shot. Scott reported observing a black male who had medium dreadlocks and possessed a handgun with a laser beam exit the front passenger side of a vehicle. Scott then did "a showup." With respect to that showup, counsel asserted:
¶ 20 In December 2019, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce recorded phone calls at defendant's trial. Specifically, the State sought to introduce multiple recorded phone calls defendant made from the jail. The State asserted the phone calls were relevant to establish defendant's consciousness of guilt. In addition, the State asserted certain statements made during the phone calls were admissible as tacit admissions, in that defendant heard the incriminating statements and had the opportunity to reply but remained silent.
¶ 21 At a hearing that same month, the trial court, after entertaining arguments from the parties, reserved judgment on the State's motion in limine until the issue was raised at trial.
¶ 23 In December 2019, the trial court conducted a bench trial. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.
¶ 25 Matthew Lorr testified, around 12:20 a.m. on April 9 2017, he and a man who went by the name of "Cuz" were in Lorr's parked vehicle, a red Dodge Neon, outside a house located at 201 Willard Avenue in Rockford, Illinois. His vehicle was parked in a residential area with "very dim" streetlights. Lorr heard "the sound...
To continue reading
Request your trial