People v. Patton
| Decision Date | 08 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4-21-0561 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAKOTA PATTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2022 IL App (4th) 210561
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAKOTA PATTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 4-21-0561
Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District
December 8, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County No. 20CF114 Honorable Charles C. Hall, Judge Presiding.
James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, Joshua Scanlon, and Salome Kiwara-Wilson, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
Jacqueline M. Lacy, State's Attorney, of Danville (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and John M. Zimmerman, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Harris and Bridges concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
STEIGMANN, JUSTICE
¶ 1 In February 2020, the State charged defendant, Dakota Patton, with being an armed habitual criminal (count I) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2018)), possession of a stolen firearm (count II) (id. § 24-3.8), and two counts of possession of a weapon by a felon (counts III and IV) (id. § 24-1.1(a)). In December 2020, defendant filed a first amended motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied following a January 2021 hearing. In August 2021, the trial court conducted a stipulated bench trial and found defendant guilty of possession of a weapon by a felon (count III). In September 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison.
¶ 2 Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred by (1) denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence because there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop that led to the discovery of the firearm and (2) failing to conduct a Krankel inquiry after the defendant told the court that his right to testify in his own defense was violated (People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984)).
¶ 3 We disagree with defendant's first argument but conclude the record is inadequate to review defendant's second argument. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment denying defendant's motion to suppress and remand for the limited purpose of conducting a preliminary Krankel inquiry.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 A. The Charges Against Defendant
¶ 6 In February 2020, the State charged defendant with being an armed habitual criminal (count I) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2018)), possession of a stolen firearm (count II) (id. § 24-3.8), and two counts of possession of a weapon by a felon (counts III and IV) (id. § 24-1.1(a)). The charges alleged, generally, that on February 14, 2020, defendant, while on parole (count IV) and having previously been convicted of possession of a weapon by a felon (count I) and robbery (count III), possessed a Ruger .380 semiautomatic firearm, knowing it to have been stolen (count II).
¶ 7 B. Defendant's Motion To Suppress Evidence
¶ 8 In December 2020, defendant filed a first amended motion to suppress evidence, alleging that the February 14, 2020, traffic stop, during which the police discovered the Ruger .380, was unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
¶ 9 In January 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion.
¶ 10 1. T.J. Davis
¶ 11 T.J. Davis testified that he was employed as a detective with the Danville Police Department. Davis stated that on February 12, 2020, he spoke with Donald Taylor at Carle Hospital in Urbana, Illinois. Taylor was "a gunshot victim on February 8th." Davis stated that the shooting
took place "[a]t the Blue Store" (a convenience store located at 801 North Vermilion Street, Danville, Illinois). Davis testified that Taylor told him that "[h]e left the Blue Store and was traveling on his bicycle when he was shot by a male in a white shirt. He mentioned a silver truck that was parked in the alley behind [AutoZone]." Davis stated that Taylor did not describe the male who shot him in any further detail, such as by including race, height, or clothing. Taylor described the truck only as silver.
¶ 12 Davis also testified that he reviewed surveillance video obtained from the Blue Store. Defense counsel pointed to defendant and asked, "In this video, the Defendant seated at this table, the defense table *** was in that video correct?" Davis replied "[y]es," and described having viewed the following on the video:
"[Defendant] initially walked up from the east off of Woodbury [Street], him and another subject, walked across the parking lot and walked into the Blue Store. They were in there for a few minutes. They exited the Blue Store and they were walking back to which [sic] they came, towards Woodbury to the southeast, and they both reacted to what would-you would assume to be the gunshots coming from the same area."
¶ 13 The following exchange then occurred:
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So [defendant] was never in a pickup truck, silver or otherwise in the video, correct
[DAVIS]: You cannot see him come from the pickup truck, no.
Q. Okay. Was the alleged shooting victim in the Blue Store at any time with [defendant]?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there any interaction between the two?
A. None."
¶ 14 On cross-examination by the State, the following exchange occurred:
"[PROSECUTOR]: [Taylor] told you specifically that after being shot, he made it to Hazel Street before falling off his bike?
[DAVIS]: Yes.
Q. [Taylor] also said that he observed the person who shot him to be with two or three subjects run [sic] to a truck?
A. Yes.
Q. Then he said that truck then fled to Woodbury eastbound, got on Hazel, then turned south on Hazel?
A. Yes.
Q. So he told you that shot, person who shot him, two or three subjects, ran to a truck?
A. Yes.
* * *
Q. And when you reviewed the surveillance video on February 14th, did you see a truck?
A. Yes.
* * *
Q. Also, the truck that you saw in the video, it went the same direction that Donald Taylor told you the truck went on Woodbury?
A. It was last seen traveling east on Woodbury before it left the view of the
camera.
Q. Okay. So that was a truck on Woodbury just like Donald Taylor told you that a truck was on Woodbury?
A. Yes. Donald Taylor said the truck was behind Auto Zone, which is right off Woodbury.
* * *
Q. So after you reviewed the surveillance, did you give that information to other officers?
A. Yes. I mean, it was discussed within CID [(Criminal Investigations Division)], investigation.
Q. Was one of those officers that was discussed Detective Chelsey Miller?
A. Yes."
¶ 15 2. Danielle Lewallen
¶ 16 Danielle Lewallen testified that she was employed as a police officer with the Danville Police Department. On February 9, 2020, she was on patrol when she saw a "silver Dodge Ram pickup truck sitting in the driveway at 732 East South Street [in Danville] which matched the description of a vehicle that was involved in a shooting the night prior." Lewallen stated that she took photographs of the truck with her phone. One of the photos Lewallen took was admitted into evidence as defendant's exhibit B.
¶ 17 Lewallen explained that she had received a department-wide email sent by "Officer Schroeder" that "advised the information about the shooting that occurred [on February 8] near the Blue Store involving a silver truck." She had received a second department-wide email sent by "Sergeant Snyder" containing "still images of the pickup truck from the video surveillance *** at
the Blue Store of the possible suspect vehicle." One of the photographs attached to Snyder's email was admitted into evidence as defendant's exhibit C.
¶ 18 Defense counsel asked Lewallen whether, "based upon the picture we have marked as [defendant's] Exhibit C, you could tell that was exactly the same vehicle that you took a picture of in the driveway [at 732 East South Street]?" Lewallen responded, "Based upon multiple photos that were sent to me in an email, I could tell it was very, very similar to the vehicle that was involved in the shooting the day before."
¶ 19 Lewallen acknowledged that the surveillance photos attached to Snyder's email did not allow her to see (1) the license plate number of the truck, (2) any writing on the back of the truck, or (3) details indicating the year the truck was made, but she testified that there were "other distinguishing factors on the photo that matched the pickup truck that [she] identified the next day." She identified those "factors" as (1) "the rust on the wheel well of the vehicle on the passenger side," (2) "the toolbox in the back of the bed of the truck," and (3) "an item on the front of the pickup truck which is consistent with a brush guard that was in the vehicle that I located on the 9th."
¶ 20 Returning to the events of February 9, 2020, Lewallen testified that, upon seeing the truck parked in the driveway at 732 East South Street, she spoke with two people who were present at the residence, Robert Phillips and Jesse Shereen, "to further investigate and inquire as to who was in possession of the vehicle the day before."
¶ 21 Lewallen testified that Phillips told her that he was the owner of the silver truck and, on the night of February 8, 2020, he had loaned his truck to someone he knew as "Cocaine Patton." Phillips showed Lewallen the Facebook page of "Cocaine Patton" to further identify him. Lewallen stated that Shereen told her the truck was returned to the house around midnight "and
that it was returned by the same subject."
¶ 22 Lewallen testified that Phillips gave her permission to search the truck and she "did not locate any items of evidentiary value." The following exchange then ensued:
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So based on your investigation in this matter, you could find no involvement of this truck in the February 8th, [2020,]...
To continue reading
Request your trial