People v. Shores
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-13-3824,1-13-3824 |
| Citation | 2016 IL App (1st) 133824 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN SHORES, 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 Cook County.
Honorable Michele Simmons, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: Second-stage dismissal of the defendant's supplemental postconviction petition and section 2-1401 petition was affirmed. The defendant failed to make a substantial showing that the State violated the disclosure rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, which denied him his constitutional right to due process of law. This court ordered the mittimus modified to reflect 1,079 days, the amount of custodial credit the defendant was entitled to against his prison sentence. The defendant's pro se motion on appeal to add additional Brady violations was denied.
¶ 2 The defendant, John Shores, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting the State's motion to dismiss his supplementary petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2010)). On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that the State violated the disclosure rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (2) the mittimus must be corrected to reflect the number of days of custodial credit the defendant was entitled to against his prison sentence.
¶ 3 After the briefs were filed, the defendant filed a pro se motion requesting this court to consider additional violations of Brady not previously raised by defense or appellate counsel. We ordered the motion taken with the case.
¶ 4 The defendant and codefendants, Deria Gaitors and Ramone Samuels, were charged with multiple counts of first degree murder, home invasion, conspiracy to commit home invasion, residential burglary and conspiracy to commit residential burglary, all in connection with the death of Ian Thorne (the victim). Ms. Gaitors and Mr. Samuels entered into plea agreements in exchange for their testimony against the defendant. The terms of the plea agreement provided that the murder charges against them would be dismissed, Ms. Gaitors would plead guilty to conspiracy to commit home invasion, Mr. Samuels would plead guilty to home invasion, and the State would recommend a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for each co-defendant.
¶ 5 The pertinent trial testimony is taken from the trial record and this court's Rule 23 order disposing of the defendant's direct appeal (People v. Shores, 366 Ill. App. 3d 1224 (2006) (table) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)). The testimony is summarized below.
¶ 6 Renetta Fonville testified that on the morning of December 13, 2001, she was sitting in a car parked on South Wallace Street in Riverdale, Illinois when she saw three men arrive at the victim's residence at 14523 South Wallace Street. As she watched, one of the men rang the doorbell. When the door opened, one of the men stepped into the doorway but quickly stepped back out. Ms. Fonville then heard a "pop." The three men fled the scene. She located a police officer and reported what she had seen.
¶ 7 Ms. Gaitors testified that she told the defendant and Mr. Samuels that the victim kept between $50,000 and $100,000 inside his residence. The three devised a plan to steal the money from the victim's residence. On December 12, 2001, Ms. Gaitors saw the defendant and Mr. Samuels; they were dressed in black in preparation for the burglary of the victim's residence. On the afternoon of December 13, 2001, Ms. Gaitors saw the defendant and Mr. Samuels, at which time the defendant told her he had shot the victim.
¶ 8 Ms. Gaitors acknowledged that she agreed to testify for the State so she would not have to face murder charges. She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit home invasion, and she expected to be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
¶ 9 Mr. Samuels testified that on the night of December 12, 2001, the defendant, Glen Fortier1 and he were each armed with .38-caliber handguns. As they approached the victim's residence, they discovered that the victim was home and aborted the burglary plan. The nextmorning, the trio returned to the victim's residence, and the defendant knocked on the door. When the victim answered the door, the defendant asked to see a woman staying at the victim's residence. When the victim turned to summon the woman, the defendant drew his weapon and pushed the victim. As the victim turned back to him, the defendant shot the victim with the .38-caliber handgun which he was carrying. The trio then fled the scene. Mr. Samuels and Mr. Fortier disposed of the murder weapon. The defendant left for Atlanta, Georgia to visit his mother. The trio later agreed to a "story," that they had gone to the victim's residence to visit three females staying there. The victim pulled out a gun, and in a struggle with the defendant, the gun discharged, killing the victim.
¶ 10 Mr. Samuels acknowledged that he was in the witness protection division of the Cook County jail. In exchange for his testimony, Mr. Samuels pleaded guilty to home invasion and expected to receive a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
¶ 11 The evidence at trial included the defendant's videotaped statement. Following his apprehension in Cobb County, Georgia, the defendant gave a videotaped statement to Cook County assistant state's attorneys. The defendant stated that he participated with Ms. Gaitors and Messrs. Samuels and Fortier in a plan to steal the victim's money. On December 13, 2001, the defendant rang the victim's doorbell. When the victim answered the door, the defendant stepped inside at which point the victim produced a gun. A struggle ensued during which the gun discharged. The defendant fled the scene taking the gun, which he disposed of later. During closing argument, the prosecutor argued to the jury that while Ms. Gaitors and Mr. Samuels were no longer charged with murder, they were still going to prison.
¶ 12 The jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 55 years' imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the defendant'sconviction. Shores, 366 Ill. App. 3d 1224 (2006) (table) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
¶ 13 The defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition, and the circuit court appointed the public defender to represent the defendant. Subsequently private counsel was retained, and he filed a supplemental postconviction petition and a petition for relief pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2012)).2 In the supplemental petition, the defendant claimed that the State violated the defendant's constitutional right to due process under Brady by failing to disclose to the defendant that Mr. Samuels received benefits and was given expectations of leniency beyond what was contained in his plea agreement with the State.
¶ 14 In support of the claim, the defendant alleged that after the plea agreement was reached, Mr. Samuels was placed in the witness protection division of the Cook County jail. In violation of the trial court's order that Mr. Samuels remain in witness protection division, on two occasions prior to the defendant's trial, he was permitted to leave the jail to participate in the Cook County sheriff's "Scared Straight" program in which he addressed high school students on the subject of the high price of a life of crime. After his testimony at the defendant's trial, Mr. Samuels was given an 8-year sentence rather than the 10-year sentence set forth in the plea agreement.
¶ 15 The defendant asserted that the State knew Mr. Samuels was released to participate in the Scared Straight program but failed to disclose this additional benefit to defense counsel. The defendant maintained that Mr. Samuels's participation in the Scared Straight program wasmaterial to the issue of the defendant's guilt and that the State's failure to disclose it violated Brady.
¶ 16 The circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss the supplemental postconviction petition and the section 2-1401 petition. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶ 19 In his pro se motion before this court, the defendant argues that the State had a duty to disclose the contents of the speeches the defendant made on June 5, 2003, and October 23, 2003, in connection with the Scared Straight program. The defendant alleges that these speeches contain incriminating statements related to Mr. Samuels's "active" role in the murder of the victim. Because these speeches contain statements capable of impeaching Mr. Samuels's testimony at the defendant's trial, the defendant maintains that they were subject to disclosure pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412 (a)(i)(ii) (eff. March 1, 2001). The defendant further alleges that the State deliberately failed to record or reduce to writing the contents of the speeches. Acknowledging that these violations are raised for the first time, the defendant requests that this court consider them under the plain-error doctrine. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(a) (eff. Aug. 27, 1999).
¶ 20 The State Appellate Defender was appointed to represent the defendant in this appeal. Appointed counsel has submitted opening and reply briefs on the defendant's behalf raising assertions of error that counsel alleges entitle the defendant to postconviction relief.
¶ 21 A defendant has no right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel. People v. Thompson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 948, 951 (2002); People v. Light...
To continue reading
Request your trial