People v. Matthews, 2-12-0403
| Decision Date | 05 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-12-0403,2-12-0403 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA L. MATTHEWS, 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 Du Page County.
Honorable Robert G. Kleeman, Judge, Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The trial court properly denied defendant's request to withdraw his waiver of counsel and it properly denied two motions to suppress. Affirmed.
¶ 2 Following a jury trial during which he appeared pro se, defendant, Joshua L. Matthews, was convicted of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2004)) and sentenced to 100 years' imprisonment (55 years for murder and 45 additional years for personal discharge of a firearm). Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying: (1) his request to withdraw his waiver of counsel; and (2) his motions to suppress his confession, alleging his confession was involuntary where (a) he did not re-initiate further discussions with the policeafter previously invoking his right to counsel, and (b) he was induced by an interrogation calculated to convince him that he would receive leniency if he confessed. We affirm.
¶ 4 On October 12, 2004, at about 11:45 p.m., defendant, age 19, was arrested on a parole-violation warrant by the Du Page Major Crimes Task Force. He was taken to the Warrenville police station to be questioned about Sade Glover's shooting death. Sade's body had been found outside her home in Warrenville in the early morning of October 10, 2004. Three months before the murder, Sade had filed a battery complaint against defendant.
¶ 5 At the police department, defendant was interrogated for several hours on the evening of October 13, 2004, and then requested counsel. The interrogation stopped. Afterwards (the duration of which is disputed), he made a re-initiation video stating that he wished to speak to the police again. The interrogation resumed, and, after several hours, defendant agreed to make a videotaped confession, which was subsequently played at trial.
¶ 6 Originally, defendant was represented by the public defender's office. However, on July 14, 2006, after about 18 months of representation, he waived his right to counsel and proceeded pro se.
¶ 8 Defendant filed at least six pro se motions to suppress. As relevant to this appeal, he alleged that: (1) after he invoked counsel, law enforcement, not defendant himself, re-initiated the interrogation; and (2) his confession was involuntary because it was the result of promises of leniency made by law enforcement. Three evidentiary hearings were held on these motions.
¶ 10 On September 28, 2006, defendant filed a pro se motion to suppress his statements, alleging that the detectives re-initiated the interrogation after defendant had requested counsel and further alleging that his subsequent statements were not given voluntarily. On November 20, 2006, a hearing began on defendant's motion.
¶ 11 Defendant testified that he asked to speak to an attorney during his videotaped interrogation on the evening of October 13, 2004, but that the detectives tried to get him to continue speaking with them. When he refused to make any more statements, they turned off the video, and left the room. Two or three minutes after the video was turned off, officers Duane Wheeler and Warren1 Cobos from the Maywood police department entered the room with a man whom defendant later learned was assistant State's Attorney Jeff Kendall. Kendall said to defendant, "I called these guys because I believed you would be more comfortable speaking with them." Kendall then left defendant with the two detectives.
¶ 12 Defendant explained that he knew Wheeler and Cobos from Maywood, where defendant lived. According to defendant, the detectives stated, "we don't give a sh[*]t about DuPage County, we're from Maywood, we're all from Maywood, we came out here to help you." They told defendant that they would make sure he walked out. Defendant testified that, at first, he refused to speak to them and that they continued speaking with him for 30 to 45 minutes.
¶ 13 Defendant testified that, during the conversation, Wheeler and Cobos told him that he was going to be charged with murder anyway, and:
¶ 14 According to defendant, he agreed to appear on videotape and state that he wanted to speak to the detectives (i.e., the re-initiation video) because they convinced him that, if he did so, they would help him. After a camera was set up, he appeared in a 17-second video, introducing Wheeler and Cobos and stating that he wanted to speak to them. At the hearing, defendant testified that he Defendant stated that the Maywood officers told him that, if he wanted to leave, he had to tell Kendall that he wanted to speak with them. After he made the re-initiation video, defendant believed that he was going to leave. After he was not let go, defendant They convinced defendant he was "already convicted." They promised that, if defendant followed their instructions, he would "go home." When questioned about his (later) statement in his videotaped confession that no promises were made, the following colloquy ensued:
¶ 15 After making the re-initiation video, the two detectives spoke to defendant. About two hours later, defendant agreed to be videotaped, confessing to Sade's murder. (About two hours and 15 minutes after the re-initiation video was made, Kendall returned to the police station to take the videotaped confession.) Wheeler and Cobos were present with Kendall during the taping.
¶ 16 Sergeant Wheeler testified that, on October 13, 2004, he arrived at the Warrenville police department at about 11:45 p.m. He was accompanied by Cobos. They were familiar with defendant and came to assist in the homicide investigation. According to Wheeler, when they arrived at the station, they walked toward a coffee room. On the way, they saw defendant in an interview room with others. Defendant looked in Wheeler's direction, pointed, and stated, "I want to talk to Office Wheeler." Wheeler then walked toward defendant, met with Kendall, and told him that defendant wanted to speak with him. Wheeler testified that, up to that point, he knew nothing about the case.
¶ 17 Wheeler further testified that Kendall informed him that defendant would first have to be recorded stating that he wanted to speak to the officers, and Wheeler told Kendall that defendant would have to be videotaped. Wheeler denied having any conversation with defendant at the Warrenville police department before that. On cross-examination, Wheeler testified that he had known defendant for a long time.
¶ 18 Officer Cobos testified that he arrived with Wheeler at the Warrenville police department at about 11:40 p.m. on October 13, 2004. Unlike Wheeler's testimony, Cobos testified that theycame to assist in a homicide case, but not this case; Cobos testified that he had not come to speak with defendant, but, rather, with someone else whom Wheeler knew. (The trial court commented that it was satisfied that Cobos came to Warrenville because of defendant, not someone else.) Similar to Wheeler's testimony, Cobos testified that they walked toward a coffee room when defendant waved to them from inside a glassed area.
¶ 19 Detective Jeff Jacobson of the Warrenville police department testified that, at about midnight on October 13 to 14, 2004, he had just returned to the station to attend a briefing on the investigation. At the briefing, he learned that detectives Frank Giammerese and Sean Grovner had interviewed defendant until he asked for an attorney. After the briefing, as Jacobson walked back to his desk, he saw defendant waving his arms and knocking on the window of the interview room, "so I went over to see if he was okay or if he needed anything." According to Jacobson, defendant "wanted to talk to Frank." (Defendant denied that he ever knocked on the glass and denied asking to speak to Frank Giammarese.) Jacobson testified that he told defendant that he would let him know about speaking to Frank. He shut the door, leaving defendant in the interview room. Jacobson then went and found Giammarese and told him that defendant wanted to speak to him again.
¶ 20 Kendall instructed Jacobson to get a re-initiation form, which he did, and the three of them (Jacobson, Giammarese, and Kendall) returned to the interview room, where defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial