People v. Maxey

• Decision Date: 13 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1-13-0698,1-13-0698
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamarr MAXEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2018 IL App (1st) 130698 -B
116 N.E.3d 249
426 Ill.Dec. 400

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lamarr MAXEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-13-0698

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Opinion filed September 13, 2018

PRESIDING JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

426 Ill.Dec. 407

116 N.E.3d 256

¶ 1 Pursuant to the supervisory order issued by the Illinois Supreme Court in this case on November 22, 2017, we vacated our previous opinion and reconsider our decision in light of People v. Wright , 2017 IL 119561, 418 Ill.Dec. 866, 91 N.E.3d 826.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant Lamarr Maxey was found guilty of residential burglary and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 20 years for the residential burglary conviction and 3 years for the aggravated fleeing conviction.

¶ 3 Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) defendant's waiver of counsel was invalid because the trial court failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) (eff. July 1, 1984); (2) during the suppression hearing, the trial court erred in allowing the State to question defendant on irrelevant matters and in excluding relevant evidence; (3) the trial court did not obtain a knowing and voluntary jury waiver; (4) the State failed to prove the charge of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer; and (5) the fines and fees order should be reduced by $24 due to improperly imposed fines and full credit for time in custody awaiting trial.

¶ 4 On April 18, 2011, defendant, along with codefendant Shadeed Love, was arrested and charged with residential burglary of Robert Fjeldheim and his residence at 333 Jackson Boulevard in Hillside, Illinois. Defendant was also charged with aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer.¹

¶ 5 Defendant first appeared before Judge Kristyna Ryan on April 19, 2011, and assistant public defender Thomas Tucker was appointed. The court found probable cause to detain and set defendant's bond at $400,000. On April 22, 2011, defendant appeared before Judge Gilbert Grossi, and was represented by assistant public defender Michael Halloran. Defendant indicated to the court that he wished to represent himself. The following colloquy then took place.

"DEFENDANT: I'm pro se . The Public Defender's office is not representing me.

THE COURT: Who said that?

DEFENDANT: I informed him already. At this time, I would like to ask for all, any and all —

THE COURT: Let's slow down here. You're getting ahead of yourself. Did you go to law school?

DEFENDANT: I'm very familiar with the law, but I don't want – I'm exercising my constitutional right. I don't want

426 Ill.Dec. 408

116 N.E.3d 257

the Public Defender's Office representing me.

THE COURT: Have you been charged with a felony before?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Well, this is residential burglary, which means you can to go the penitentiary between four and 15 years.

DEFENDANT: Right. Being advised of that, I'm–I would still like to exercise my constitutional rights.

THE COURT: Slow down. We are not done yet. Have you ever represented yourself before?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: And what happened to the case?

DEFENDANT: I had a split verdict.

THE COURT: What was the split verdict?

DEFENDANT: Not guilty of armed robbery and guilty of robbery. And I recently represented myself in Illinois in front of the judge in 702 in the criminal courts building on a motion.

THE COURT: You understand—you have a right to represent yourself. There's no question about that. You understand if you represent yourself, I'm going to hold you to the same standard as I would a lawyer?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: That you're not going to be allowed to have a public defender stand by and help you in any fashion whatsoever.

DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, [Y]our Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Then you can represent yourself."

¶ 6 After the trial court allowed defendant to appear pro se , defendant then made the following oral motion.

"DEFENDANT: Your [H]onor, at this time, I would be requesting that any 911 calls be saved, any police radio transmissions and apprehension and stopping of my van, I would be asking that all those police radio transmissions and any 911 calls made in regards to a burglary at 33 Jackson [sic ]—

THE COURT: Were there any such calls?

POLICE OFFICER: From the victim, [Y]our Honor.

THE COURT: I'll sign an order preserving—

DEFENDANT: And the radio transmissions too, [Y]our Honor.

THE COURT: Sure. I'll sign an order to preserve anything transmitted relating to this case.

DEFENDANT: The calls on the radio transmission.

THE COURT: Sure."

¶ 7 The case was then set for the grand jury on May 6, 2011. At that court date, the trial court informed defendant that he had been indicted by the grand jury. Defendant asked again about the preservation of radio calls.

"DEFENDANT: Last time I requested [the] 911 [phone] calls and the police radio transmissions. Can they be preserved?

THE COURT: Did you file an order? Did you file an order preserving them?

DEFENDANT: I asked you last time I was here.

THE COURT: No, I have to have a written order. An oral order is on the record, but I have to have a written record if you want to get it done. * * * Let's send a blank order for him back there to fill it out."

¶ 8 On May 27, 2011, defendant appeared pro se before Judge Noreen Love for an arraignment. When the trial court

426 Ill.Dec. 409

116 N.E.3d 258

asked who represented defendant, the following discussion occurred.

"DEFENDANT: I'm pro se at this time, [Y]our Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sure a lawyer was appointed in –

DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: No lawyer was ever appointed?

DEFENDANT: No. I asked to be pro se since the inception of the case.

THE COURT: So you've been intending to go pro se all along?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I have. I've been admonished three times by Judge Grossi. I have a motion for discovery I would like to submit at this time, and Judge Grossi—

THE COURT: Well, you're putting the cart before the horse. Because right now it's time for you to be arraigned on this matter. I cannot give you legal advice. You understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes, Ma'am, I do.

THE COURT: And you understand that you're going to be held to the same standard as any other attorney would when you're representing yourself?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: You also understand that State's Attorneys are licensed, practicing attorneys. They have been to law school. They have to pass the bar in order to be in the position that they're in. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: How much education have you had, sir?

DEFENDANT: Currently a junior at Chicago State University upon my arrest.

THE COURT: Well, let me start first by asking you: Do you know what an arraignment is?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand the procedure for an arraignment?

DEFENDANT: Yes, being notified of the official charges against me.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Then I'm going to ask you this question: Do you want me to read to you the actual charges, or do you want to waive the reading of the charges; in other words, give up the right to have the charges read to you?

DEFENDANT: I'm giving up the right to hearing them read.

THE COURT: Okay. How are you pleading, sir, to each and every charge? You do know what you're being charged with; is that correct?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. Not guilty, and I'm also demanding trial."

¶ 9 The trial court then discussed with defendant whether he was ready for trial that day without having any discovery. The court also admonished defendant that it would not appoint standby counsel for defendant and he would be on his own. Defendant indicated that he understood. Defendant then presented the discovery order signed by Judge Grossi. The court then discussed with defendant whether the order was sent to the appropriate parties, including the Hillside police department. On that date, defendant also filed a handwritten motion for discovery, asking the state's attorney to disclose and produce evidence which is essential and material to the preparation of his defense, including but not limited to names and addresses of State witnesses.

¶ 10 At a June 2011 court date, the State tendered discovery to defendant in court, including the case report, photos, and the grand jury transcript. Defendant also moved for a bond reduction. At the next court date in July, defendant discussed his

426 Ill.Dec. 410

116 N.E.3d 259

motion for bond reduction, indicating that he would reduce it to writing. He also asked about access to a disk with discovery on it. At the following court date in August, the State tendered additional discovery to defendant. The court also informed defendant that this case would proceed before the 2008 case. Defendant withdrew his motion to reduce bond. Later that month, the court told defendant that the State was setting up equipment to allow him to view a videotape in the courtroom.

...