People v. Simmons

• Decision Date: 22 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1–13–1300.,1–13–1300.
• Citation: People v. Simmons, 66 N.E.3d 360, 408 Ill.Dec. 568 (Ill. App. 2016)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Antoine SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

66 N.E.3d 360

408 Ill.Dec. 568

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Antoine SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–13–1300.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Sept. 22, 2016.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 2016.

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Therese Bissell, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michelle Katz, Janet C. Mahoney, and Tasha–Marie Kelly, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Presiding Justice ELLISdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1DefendantAntoine Simmons was convicted of first-degree murder based on evidence that he shot and killed Larry Watkins at a stoplight at the corner of Garfield Boulevard and Michigan Avenue in Chicago.Three eyewitnesses, including the two passengers in Watkins's car, identified defendant as the shooter.The State also presented evidence that a bullet found in Watkins's body matched a bullet recovered in the shooting of Ellen Williams.Williams testified that defendant had shot her in the hand about a month before Watkins's death.

¶ 2Defendant appeals, raising seven issues: (1) that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the eyewitnesses' identifications of him were unreliable; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the identifications because the judge who saw defendant testify was not the same judge who ultimately denied the motion, and the outcome of the motion rested on a credibility determination; (3) that the expert who testified that the bullets from the Watkins and Williams shootings matched failed to lay an adequate foundation for his opinion, rendering his testimony inadmissible; (4) that the evidence of the Williams shooting was inadmissible because the State failed to show that defendant was involved in that shooting, and any probative value attributable to that evidence substantially outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice it carried; (5) that the prosecution made improper comments during closing arguments; (6) that the trial court failed to consider defendant's rehabilitative potential when it sentenced defendant to natural life in prison; and (7) that three of the counts of murder of which he was convicted should be vacated pursuant to the one-act, one-crime doctrine.

¶ 3We affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.Defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where the three eyewitnesses identifications of defendant as the shooter bore sufficient indicia of reliability and were corroborated by firearms evidence linking defendant to the crime.Defendant cannot claim that the trial court erred in ruling on his motion to suppress after reviewing a transcript, where that was the course of action his attorney suggested the trial court take.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the State's firearms identification expert where the deficiencies in his testimony merely affected its weight, not its admissibility.Nor did the court err in admitting evidence of the Williams shooting where Williams, who knew defendant, identified him as the shooter and the evidence of the other shooting was significantly probative of defendant's identity.We also find that the prosecutor's remarks in closing arguments, though improper, did not prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial.Finally, we find that the trial court considered proper factors in sentencing defendant to natural life in prison and decline to reweigh the sentencing factors considered by the court.

¶ 4We agree with defendant that three of his counts of murder must be vacated because they arose out of the same act.We direct the clerk to issue a corrected mittimus with only one count of first-degree murder.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 A. Motion to Suppress Identifications

¶ 7 Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress lineup identifications of him as the shooter, arguing both that the police improperly showed him to witnesses before conducting the lineups and that the compositions of the lineups were suggestive.

¶ 8 The hearing on the motion was conducted over the course of two dates.Judge Laws presided over the hearing on the first date.

¶ 9 On the first hearing date, defendant testified that the police took him to Area 1 police headquarters on the evening January 11, 2007.At the time, defendant was in a wheelchair because he had "just [been] shot" and could not walk.

¶ 10Defendant testified that, when he arrived at Area 1, the officers left him in the back of the squad car in the parking lot.Another squad car pulled up next to defendant and shined a spotlight on defendant.Defendant testified that he tried to duck down, but the detective in the squad car made him raise his head into the light.

¶ 11Defendant testified that he saw two people in the other car with a police officer.He said that he heard one of these people say, "I'm Blackstone.You the one that killed my man."The two men in the car then got out and approached defendant.One of the men said, "I'm Blackstone.I'm gonna kill you."Defendant testified that he believed "Blackstone" was a reference to a gang but defendant did not know either man.

¶ 12Defendant said that the officers in his squad car retrieved his wheelchair from the trunk and brought him into the police station.The officers took him to the bathroom, where he again saw one of the two men who had confronted him in the parking lot.

¶ 13Defendant testified that the police put him in a lineup with four other people.The detectives took defendant's wheelchair from him and made him lean against the person next to him in the lineup.Defendant testified that, during the lineup, he heard one of the detectives say, "Hurry up.We ain't got time for this bullshit.Hurry up.Pick him up.You wasting our time," and "That's him.Antoine Simmons, guy number four, right there.Pick him out."Defendant testified that the detective also told another witness to pick him out of the lineup, saying, "That's the guy right there who killed your friend, Walker."

¶ 14Defendant acknowledged that, in a picture of the lineup, he was seated.But he said that photograph was taken after the witnesses had picked him out.

¶ 15Defendant testified that he had been convicted of four prior felonies: aggravated discharge of a firearm, two separate attempted murders, and escape.

¶ 16 After defendant testified, the parties agreed to continue the hearing so that defense counsel could locate another witness.The hearing was continued several times at defense counsel's request.

¶ 17 Eventually, the case was reassigned to Judge Hennelly.Defense counsel explained to Judge Hennelly that defendant had three cases pending and said, "The elected matter is a homicide in which we started a motion with Judge Laws.What I suggest to the Court is if this court could read the transcript from what we've heard already."The court replied, "Sure.I'm glad to do that."The parties agreed to continue the hearing again.

¶ 18 After one more continuance, the hearing resumed before Judge Hennelly.Judge Hennelly indicated that he had read the transcript of defendant's testimony, summarized defendant's testimony, and asked defense counsel if the summary was accurate.Defense counsel said that it was and rested defendant's case.

¶ 19The State called Detective Brian Lutzow, who testified that he conducted the lineup on January 11, 2007.Lutzow said that defendant was in a wheelchair when they picked him up from Cook County jail.

¶ 20 When Lutzow set up the lineup, he put defendant in a chair and brought him another chair so that he could put his feet up.Lutzow testified that the other participants in the lineup were also seated.Lutzow said that he kept the three witnesses who viewed the lineup separate from one another before and after they viewed it.

¶ 21 Lutzow denied displaying defendant before the witnesses in the parking lot of the police station.He also denied bringing defendant to the bathroom in front of any of the witnesses or instructing any of the witnesses to identify defendant.

¶ 22The parties stipulated that, in a report prepared by Detective John Foster regarding the lineup, Foster said that the lineup participants were told "to approach the one-way mirror and perform facing movements so that both side[ ] profile[s] and full face position could be viewed."

¶ 23The court reserved its ruling for a later date, at which time the court denied defendant's motion.The court explained:

"I am faced with the situation where I have to juxtapose and judge the testimony of the defendant, who has been proven to be a convicted felon, against the testimony of a Chicago Police Officer, which I found came in un-rebutted and uncontradicted.

Therefore, * * * having reviewed [the defendant's] testimony, along with that of the detective, and the allegation that [defendant has] made, * * * I choose to believe the testimony of the police detective.

And the [defendant's] factual allegations I find to be without merit, and I frankly do not believe that factual allegations that [he has] made in [his] motion * * *."

¶ 24 B. Trial

¶ 25Karl Stevens and Jeffon Henson, two friends of the decedent, Larry Watkins, testified regarding the shooting.

¶ 26 On the evening of December 27, 2006, Stevens, Henson, and Watkins went to a liquor store and purchased champagne and small cigars to roll "blunts"—cigar rolling papers filled with marijuana.Stevens testified that he and Watkins had smoked two blunts that morning, and Henson testified that he had smoked marijuana earlier that day.Both Stevens and Henson denied being under the influence of marijuana at the time they went to the liquor store, however.

¶ 27 Watkins, Stevens, and Henson stopped at Watkins's house, picked up marijuana, and left in Watkins's car.Watkins drove, Stevens sat in the front passenger's seat, and Henson sat in the...