People v. Parker

Decision Date29 December 2016
Docket NumberNo. 1-14-1597,1-14-1597
Citation2016 IL App (1st) 141597,70 N.E.3d 734
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jordon PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Caroline E. Bourland, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, John E. Nowak, and Michael Z. Zhu, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Jordan Parker was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to a total of eight years in prison. The State's case against Mr. Parker rested on the testimony of the complainant, A.T., who testified that, on the evening of July 23, 2009, she was 18 years old and had been in a dating relationship with Mr. Parker, who was then 19 years old. They had dated for just under two months when she met him at a park near her home. A.T. testified that, while the two were in the backseat of Mr. Parker's vehicle, despite her protestations, Mr. Parker proceeded to remove her clothing and force her to submit to oral and anal sexual contact before finally giving her clothing back and allowing her to leave the vehicle.

¶ 2 Mr. Parker raises four issues on appeal. He argues that his convictions should be reversed both because no rational trier of fact could have accepted A.T.'s uncorroborated and improbable account of events to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. Mr. Parker additionally argues that, as applied to him, the Sex Offender Registration Act (see 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West 2012)) and related statutes are punitive in effect and violate both the eighth amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. Finally, Mr. Parker argues that the Sex Offender Registration Act is facially unconstitutional because it violates registrants' substantive and procedural due process rights. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Jordon Parker was charged with multiple counts each of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1) (West 2008)) and criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-15(a)(1) (West 2008)) based on the State's allegations that on July 23, 2009, Mr. Parker forcibly penetrated or made sexual contact with the vagina and anus of A.T., the complainant.

¶ 5 Mr. Parker's defense attorney requested a bench trial and one was held on September 27, 2013. Before trial, the court stated: "I need the charging document. * * * Now, I need a Jury waiver, if that has not been previously done." The following exchange then took place:

"THE COURT: * * * Sir, I have here what is known as a Jury waiver. Is that your signature?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: By signing that you give up the right to have a trial by Jury. Do you know what a Jury trial is?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes."

¶ 6 At trial, A.T. testified that, when she met Mr. Parker in May 2009, she was 18 years old, had recently graduated from Oak Park River Forest High School, and lived with her parents. A.T. stated that she met Mr. Parker on May 30, 2009, when she stopped at a gas station where he was selling CDs. She purchased a CD from Mr. Parker, who asked if A.T. was single and included his phone number on the face of the CD. The next day, A.T. called Mr. Parker. A.T. and Mr. Parker began dating and A.T. stated that between June and July 2009 they called and sent text messages to each other and met on three occasions.

¶ 7 A.T. further testified that, on July 23, 2009, she and Mr. Parker made plans to meet in the parking lot of Oak Park River Forest High School. A.T. rode her bicycle to the high school and Mr. Parker arrived in his white Ford Explorer. A.T. got into Mr. Parker's vehicle and they talked for approximately 45 minutes. At around 5:30 p.m., A.T. and Mr. Parker left the parking lot to go to a park near Fenwick High School, which was close to A.T.'s house; A.T. road her bicycle and Mr. Parker drove his vehicle. Once they reached the park, A.T. parked her bicycle next to Mr. Parker's Ford Explorer and they both entered the backseat of the vehicle.

¶ 8 According to A.T., the two talked for a few minutes and then began kissing. Mr. Parker then attempted to remove A.T.'s clothing and A.T. told him no. She testified that the two went "back and forth," with A.T. trying to keep her clothing on and Mr. Parker trying to remove it, until he succeeded in removing her shorts. When asked to describe their exchange, A.T. stated: "I said stop. No. I don't want to. He said let me do it." A.T. testified that she continued to resist Mr. Parker's efforts but after five or ten minutes he succeeded in removing her clothing and underwear.

¶ 9 A.T. testified that, at this point, Mr. Parker asked if she would have oral sex with him and she said no. For another five minutes A.T. stated Mr. Parker kept trying to convince her and she kept saying no, until finally he forced her to allow him to perform oral sex on her. When asked specifically what Mr. Parker did to force her, A.T. stated "I was still on the back seat sitting in the back seat of the car, and he was on the floor. And he forced me to let him perform it on me." A.T. testified that she then started crying and asked Mr. Parker to stop but that he continued for a few minutes and stopped only "when he felt like it." Mr. Parker then asked A.T. why she was crying, and A.T. responded that she was uncomfortable, he was making her do things she did not want to do, and she was scared.

¶ 10 A.T. stated that Mr. Parker then asked her to perform oral sex on him and A.T. said no. He then laid A.T. horizontally across the backseat of the vehicle and she screamed. A.T. stated that Mr. Parker reacted with surprise, asking her if she thought he planned to rape her, and A.T. responded "yes." Mr. Parker allowed A.T. to sit back up but continued to ask her to have sex with him for about five or ten minutes while she cried and told him no.

¶ 11 A.T. testified that she then decided to lie to Mr. Parker, telling him that she was raped by a family member when she was a child, because she thought he might stop pressuring her for sex. Mr. Parker said "ok" but, less than five minutes later, pulled A.T. onto his lap. A.T. testified that she attempted to cover herself with a towel and felt pain in her behind. She told Mr. Parker to stop, and he responded by telling her that he was wearing protection. A.T. looked down and saw that Mr. Parker's penis was inside her anus. She did not see a condom. A.T. testified that she tried to get off of Mr. Parker and that she hit him on the side of his head, causing him to say "don't do that." A.T. further testified that she was scared and she did not want to make Mr. Parker angry because she "thought he might do something else."

¶ 12 A.T. testified that she was crying after she got off of Mr. Parker's lap and Mr. Parker told her "it's fine and it's okay. Stop crying." A.T. told Mr. Parker that it was late and she wanted to go home but he would not give her back her clothing and the doors of the vehicle were locked. A.T. recalled that she was unable to find her underwear and Mr. Parker told her that they were "lost or [he was] going to keep them or something." According to A.T., while she put on the rest of her clothes Mr. Parker took pictures of her on his phone. When A.T. got out of the car, Mr. Parker attempted to give her a hug, but she refused.

¶ 13 A.T. testified that it was then approximately 8:15 p.m. She rode her bike home, went to her room, and sent a text message to her friend about the encounter. At around 8:45 p.m., Mr. Parker called her to see if she had made it home safely. A.T. testified that she saw Mr. Parker's phone number on her caller ID but answered the phone anyway because she "wanted to know what he was going to say." Later that evening, A.T. placed her clothes in a plastic bag and put them in her closet. She considered telling the police and her parents but did not because she felt scared. A.T. testified that she spoke to Mr. Parker again "a couple of days after or the next couple of weeks" and they "talked a little bit," at which point A.T. ended the relationship.

¶ 14 After approximately one month, A.T. told her parents what happened because she did not want Mr. Parker "to get away with it." The police came to A.T.'s house and she gave them the CD she purchased from Mr. Parker and the plastic bag containing her clothes.

¶ 15 On cross-examination, A.T. acknowledged that on the evening in question Mr. Parker never told her that she could not leave his vehicle, that one of the car windows was open but she did not call for help, and that Mr. Parker did not rip or tear her clothing. A.T. testified, however, that she kicked at Mr. Parker and scratched him on his arms. She stated that they were both pulling on her clothing and he simply pulled harder. A.T. also agreed that she received a text message from her parents telling her to come home at about the time she retrieved her clothing and headed home.

¶ 16 Officer Troy Fields testified that he responded to A.T.'s report of sexual assault and received the bag of clothes on August 24, 2009.

¶ 17 Jamie Jett, a forensic scientist at the Illinois State Police crime lab, found no hairs, fibers, or debris on the clothing and no traces of semen on either the clothing or in Mr. Parker's vehicle.

¶ 18 Officer Seth DeYoung testified that on August 26, 2009, he interviewed A.T. in the presence of her mother at the River Forest police station. According to Officer DeYoung, A.T. did not tell him that she kicked or scratched Mr. Parker but did tell him that she struck Mr. Parker in the head when he put his penis in her anus. A.T. did not tell Officer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People ex rel. T.B.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 2019
    ...City of New Orleans v. Dukes , 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976) ; see People v. Parker , 410 Ill.Dec. 607, 70 N.E.3d 734, 755-56 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) ("While not every offender is necessarily inclined to commit another sex offense, subjecting that group as a whole to ......
  • People v. Lee
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 30, 2018
    ...and restrictions in Avila-Briones , 2015 IL App (1st) 132221, ¶¶ 69-71, 401 Ill.Dec. 40, 49 N.E.3d 428, as noted in People v. Parker , 2016 IL App (1st) 141597, ¶ 78, 410 Ill.Dec. 607, 70 N.E.3d 734. After analyzing the "prohibitions, obligations, and mandatory dissemination of information"......
  • People v. Wells
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 8, 2019
    ...does not implicate a fundamental right and did not violate defendant's substantive or procedural due process rights); People v. Parker , 2016 IL App (1st) 141597, ¶¶ 78-82, 410 Ill.Dec. 607, 70 N.E.3d 734 (SORA statutory scheme does not violate due process); People v. Rodriguez , 2019 IL Ap......
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 26, 2019
    ...sex offender registration scheme, although ostensibly a civil regulatory statute, had punitive effects. But as we found in People v. Parker , 2016 IL App (1st) 141597, ¶¶ 64-65, 410 Ill.Dec. 607, 70 N.E.3d 734, not only is the Michigan scheme distinguishable from the Illinois version of SOR......
  • 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