People v. Peoples
| Decision Date | 22 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-19-0114,5-19-0114 |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (5th) 190114 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERAD W. PEOPLES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
Decision filed 06/22/20. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
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 Marion County.
¶ 1 Held: Where the trial court was presented with information of the defendant's whereabouts on the morning of trial, the trial court's decision to proceed to trial in absentia without conducting an adequate inquiry into evidence before it that the defendant was hospitalized constituted an abuse of discretion. Where the defendant's hospital medical records support the existence of preexisting and cute psychiatric diagnoses coupled with an acute acetaminophen overdose, the defendant presented sufficient information supporting his claim that his absence was not willful. Where the trial court was not required to advise the defendant of the possible sentencing range at arraignment, the trial court's incorrect information about the sentencing range does not require that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Where the defendant was unable to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on an alleged incorrect explanation of the applicable sentencing range at arraignment, the defendant is not entitled to relief. We vacate the defendant's conviction and sentence because his absence was not willful, and the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct an adequate inquiry.
¶ 2 The defendant, Jerad W. Peoples, was charged with four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child under the age of 13 (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2012)) in January 2015 by theMarion County State's Attorney. In exchange for a waiver of his right to a jury trial, the State dismissed three of the four counts. The defendant was tried in absentia and convicted on August 30, 2017. His motion to vacate the conviction was denied. The defendant appealed before sentencing, and we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on January 17, 2018. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 35 years of imprisonment on April 19, 2018. The defendant filed two posttrial motions. The first motion asked the trial court to reconsider his sentence. The second posttrial motion asked the trial court to vacate his conviction. The trial court denied both motions on March 11, 2019. The defendant appeals from this order.
¶ 5 On approximately January 3, 2015, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received notification about an allegation involving the defendant and a six-year-old female named L.K. L.K. informed her friend at a sleepover that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with her "stepfather"—the defendant. The mother of L.K.'s friend contacted DCFS. DCFS interviewed L.K.'s mother who said that she did not believe her daughter because she had recently been acting out and seeking attention after the birth of a sibling.
¶ 6 On January 9, 2015, L.K. was interviewed by a staff member at the Amy Schultz Child Advocacy Center (Amy Center). The interview was videotaped and played for the jury at the defendant's trial.
¶ 7 L.K.'s mother was the defendant's significant other. Throughout the Amy Center interview, L.K. referred to male and female genitalia as a "wrong spot." She informed the interviewer that the defendant touched her wrong spot at various times while they lived together in two different locations. More specifically, L.K. stated that the defendant made her put her mouth on his wrongspot and that sometimes white stuff would come out in her mouth and she did not like the taste of the white stuff; that something like white "pee" came out of the defendant's wrong spot after she touched it; that the defendant referred to the white "pee" as "medicine"; that the defendant licked his fingers before touching her wrong spot; that sometimes the defendant put his mouth on her body and his tongue on her wrong spot and that he would move his tongue back and forth on her wrong spot and that his tongue would be inside her body; that the defendant made her watch videos of adults involved in sexual activities; and that after each encounter the defendant made her wash her hands and brush her teeth.
¶ 8 During the Amy Center interview, L.K. stated that she told her friend that she had had sex with her "stepfather." She also told her mother and her friend's parents. Initially, L.K.'s mother did not believe that the defendant had engaged in the sexual activity L.K. described.
¶ 9 L.K. underwent a medical examination that did not reveal physical evidence of sexual abuse.
¶ 10 On January 14, 2015, the State charged the defendant with four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. Predatory criminal sexual assault of a child is a Class X felony. Count I alleged that between February 2011 and December 2013, the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration by placing his penis into contact with the mouth of a minor under the age of 13. Count II alleged that between February 2011 and December 2013, the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration with a minor under the age of 13 years by placing his mouth into contact with the minor's vagina. Count III alleged that between October 2014 and January 2015, the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration with a minor under the age of 13 in that he placed his penis into contact with the minor's mouth. Count IV alleged that between October 2014 and January 2015, the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration with a minor under the age of 13 years by placing his mouth into contact with the minor's vagina.
¶ 12 The defendant was arraigned on these four charges on January 14, 2015. During the arraignment, the trial court advised the defendant that each of the four charges was a Class X felony for which he "could be sentenced to incarceration in the Department of Corrections from 6 to 30 years" plus a 3-year period of mandatory supervised release. The trial court then asked the assistant state's attorney if these charges were "the ones that could go to life?" The assistant state's attorney responded that consecutive sentence on all the charges were mandatory and that the mandatory supervised release was from three years to life.
¶ 14 On August 3, 2017, the defendant waived his right to a trial by jury on the advice of counsel. In exchange for the defendant's waiver, the State dismissed three charges against him. The remaining charge was count III—which alleged that the defendant's penis came into contact with L.K.'s mouth between October 2014 and January 2015.
¶ 15 At the hearing, the trial court explained to the defendant that if he failed to appear at the bench trial later in August 2017, he would be tried in absentia. The trial court explained that the defendant's attorney would attempt to represent him if he did not appear for the bench trial, but that the defendant would be foregoing certain rights. The defendant confirmed to the trial court that he understood.
¶ 16 At the time of the waiver, the defendant claims that he believed he could not be sentenced for more than 30 years on one count—that the sentencing range was 6 to 30 years. The defendant's claims are based upon incorrect sentencing range information received at arraignment from the trial court and allegedly from his attorney. The defendant's attorney does not remember the precise conversation he had with the defendant but stated that he would not dispute the defendant's claimthat he provided misinformation about the maximum sentence as most felonies were capped at 30 years. Instead, each count carried a possible sentence of up to 60 years in prison. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(b)(1) (West 2012).
¶ 18 On August 29, 2017, the trial court held a pretrial hearing. The defendant and his attorney were present. The defendant's attorney requested a continuance because the defendant wanted to hire a new attorney to represent him at trial. The defendant explained that the day before he had a meeting with his attorney. He believed that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss trial strategy. Instead, the defendant informed the court that he felt he was being pressured by his attorney—that his attorney had lost confidence in the defendant's innocence and his ability to defend him on the charge. The defendant explained that he wrote down questions and then called his attorney later in the evening, stating that he could not make this life-altering decision until he had answers to his questions. The defendant stated that his attorney could not answer some of the questions which left him with the belief that his attorney was unprepared for trial.
¶ 19 In response, the State argued that the case had been pending for over two years; that this was a special setting; and that although there may have been a breakdown in the relationship between the defendant and his attorney, the defendant's attorney was still competent to defend him.
¶ 20 The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a continuance and denied his attorney's request to withdraw. The court advised the defendant and his attorney that the trial would begin as scheduled the following morning. To conclude the hearing, the court asked the defendant if he "understood when [he was] due back here?" The defendant answered in the affirmative.
¶ 22 On August 30, 2017, the defendant did not appear for...
To continue reading
Request your trial