People v. Strong
| Decision Date | 09 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-12-2019,1-12-2019 |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (1st) 122019 -U |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VANESSA STRONG, Defendant-Appellant. |
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 Clayton J. Crane, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the admission of a video recording used to convict defendant, and the trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to proceed pro se at trial. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant Vanessa Strong was found guilty of three counts of identity theft and one count of theft, and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant first contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her theft convictions. In the alternative, defendant contends that (i) her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failingto object to the admission of an inculpatory video recording; and (ii) the trial court improperly denied her request to proceed pro se. We affirm.
¶ 4 Defendant was charged by indictment with three counts of identity theft for knowingly possessing three stolen credit cards on September 6, 2011, and one count of theft for knowingly obtaining unauthorized control of the victim's purse on that same date. Defendant was arrested on September 6, 2011. On October 25, 2011, one week after her first court appearance during which she was appointed counsel to represent her, defendant informed the trial court that she had "a whole lot to say."
¶ 5 The matter was continued to December 5, 2011, during which defendant complained that she had been waiting for the discovery for the previous 1½ months. The trial court responded by directing the parties to complete discovery as soon as practicable. On December 22, defendant informed the court that she no longer wanted her court-appointed attorney because he was not working for her, specifically, that he would not set her case for trial. The trial court told defendant that the discovery phase was not yet complete, but that she could raise this issue again when discovery was complete. During various subsequent court appearances, defendant complained of being incarcerated without a trial date having been set.
¶ 6 On April 27, 2014, the parties appeared before the trial court, and defense counsel explained to the trial court that both parties were ready for trial, but that defendant indicated to defense counsel that defendant wanted to conduct the cross-examination. Then, according to defense counsel, defendant accused him of "working with the State and holding her against her will," and she demanded the discovery materials from defense counsel. Defense counselinformed the trial court that he told defendant that she could proceed pro se if she wanted to, but that the trial court should speak to her first. The following colloquy then took place.
¶ 7 The trial court then briefly recessed to allow defendant to "see everything again." When the trial court reconvened, it asked whether the parties were ready for trial. Defense counselstated that he was ready, but added that defendant wanted to address the court. The following exchanges then took place.
¶ 8 The State then called Cruz Garcia to testify. Garcia stated that her husband's name was Victor, and at around 9 a.m. on September 6, 2011, she went to the Family Thrift Store on West Cermak Road in Chicago to buy some clothes. Garcia brought her purse with her, whichcontained three credit cards, her passport, cell phone, keys, and insurance cards. She spent about three hours at the store, trying on clothes. She had a shopping cart with her, and she placed her purse in the "small part" of the shopping cart so that she could try on clothes. When she finished shopping, she went to the cash registers, at which point she realized her purse was missing. She spoke to a manager and then went to the local police station to fill out a report.
¶ 9 Garcia then went home. Police detectives later took Garcia and her husband to the police station, where Garcia identified her purse and its contents, including the three credit cards, her passport, cell phone, keys, and insurance cards. The police returned everything except for the three credit cards to her. Garcia stated that she had never known defendant and did not give her (or anyone else) permission to use or have possession of her and her husband's credit cards. Garcia made an in-court identification of the three credit cards from her purse that the police had retained. On cross-examination, Garcia admitted she did not recall seeing defendant at the store.
¶ 10 Chicago police officer Jason Bala then testified that, on September 6, 2011, he and his partner, Rafael Megallon, were on routine patrol. At around 1 p.m., Bala observed a vehicle with license plates matching a description of a suspect vehicle that was dispatched to all cars. Bala...
To continue reading
Request your trial