People v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 31 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. 4-02-0180.,4-02-0180.
• Citation: 345 Ill. App.3d 286,802 N.E.2d 402,280 Ill.Dec. 477
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Staten D. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

802 N.E.2d 402

345 Ill. App.3d 286

280 Ill.Dec. 477

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Staten D. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-02-0180.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

December 31, 2003.

Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender (Court-appointed), Susan M. Wilham, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for Staten Taylor.

Scott Rueter, State's Attorney, Decatur, Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, for the People.

Justice MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:

In December 2001, a jury convicted defendant, Staten D. Taylor, of residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2000)) and burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2000)). In February 2002, the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent 14- and 6-year prison terms for residential burglary and burglary, respectively. On appeal, defendant argues that he was improperly convicted of both residential and motor vehicle burglary because the motor vehicle burglary was committed while within the burglarized residence's attached garage. Defendant argues that because the vehicle was located within the dwelling, the motor vehicle theft was subsumed under the residential burglary. Defendant argues that the two offenses are mutually exclusive and, therefore, he may not be convicted of both. We disagree and affirm the trial court's convictions on both motor vehicle burglary and residential burglary.

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2001, the State charged defendant with residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2000)) for entering a dwelling with the intent to commit therein a theft and theft of property with a value in excess of $300 (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A) (West 2000)) for his theft of $80 in cash, a 35-millimeter camera (valued at $250), and a Nokia cellular phone (valued at $200) from a vehicle in the home's attached garage. Later, in October, the State filed an additional count of simple burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2000)) against defendant for the items he stole from the vehicle. (The State did not charge defendant with burglary to a motor vehicle for entry into a truck parked in the driveway, although the evidence suggests it could have.) On the first day of defendant's December 2001 jury trial, the State dismissed the count of theft of property with a value in excess of $300. Trial proceeded on the residential burglary and burglary counts.

Evidence at trial showed that the victim, James Parker, and his girlfriend, Shawn Chandler, were asleep in Parker's home located at 707 N. Moffet on the evening of September 8, 2001. Parker awoke in his residence at approximately 6 a.m., September 9, 2001, to find an intruder in the upstairs hallway of his home. Parker ordered the intruder out of his home. Parker knew the intruder to be defendant, Staten Taylor. Defendant had previously been involved with one of Chandler's friends, Stephanie Embry. Defendant had been inside Parker's house on more than one occasion. A later inspection of the home and vehicles revealed that defendant had broken into Parker's Ford pickup truck parked in the driveway in front of the house. Defendant gained entry to the truck, took an unknown amount of money, and found the garage door opener he used to enter the attached garage. The State did not charge defendant with this burglary. Upon entering the garage, defendant took $80 in cash, a 35-millimeter camera (valued at $250), and a Nokia cellular phone (valued at $200) from Chandler's vehicle parked inside the home's attached garage. From the garage, defendant entered the interior of the home. Defendant also took approximately $150 in cash from a dresser drawer located in the upstairs bedroom of the home.

The jury found defendant guilty of both charges. The trial court sentenced defendant as stated. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Defendant argues that the facts of this case support a residential burglary and therefore cannot support a burglary. The standard of review on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is "`whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (Emphasis omitted.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 262, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 478 N.E.2d 267, 277 (1985), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979).

B. An Attached Garage May Be Considered a Part of the Dwelling

Defendant contends that because the theft to the vehicle occurred within the confines of the attached garage, it occurred within the dwelling and was part of the residential burglary.

The residential burglary statute states:

"A person commits residential burglary who knowingly and without authority enters or knowingly and without authority remains within the dwelling place of another, or any part thereof, with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense includes the offense of burglary as defined in [s]ection 19-1." 720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2000).

Defendant correctly points out that this court and others have previously found that an attached garage may be part of the dwelling place for the purposes of the residential burglary statute. People v. Dawson, 116 Ill.App.3d 672, 675, 72 Ill.Dec. 260, 452 N.E.2d 385, 387 (1983) (Fourth District); People v. Borgen, 282 Ill.App.3d 116, 120-22, 218 Ill.Dec. 71, 668 N.E.2d 234, 238-39 (1996) (Second District); People v. Silva, 256 Ill.App.3d 414, 420, 195 Ill.Dec. 484, 628 N.E.2d 948, 953 (1993) (First District). The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, held "an attached garage is not necessarily a `dwelling' within the meaning of the residential burglary statute." People v. Thomas, 137 Ill.2d 500, 519, 148 Ill.Dec. 751, 561 N.E.2d 57, 64 (1990). The Thomas court acknowledged its divergence with Dawson, instead relying on its 1985 decision, People v. Bales 108 Ill.2d 182, 91 Ill.Dec. 171, 483 N.E.2d 517 (1985). The Bales decision defined "dwelling" as a structure that is "used by another as a residence or living quarters in which the owners or occupants actually reside or, if absent, intend within a reasonable period of time to reside." Bales, 108 Ill.2d at 191,91 Ill.Dec. 171,483 N.E.2d at 521. This definition was later codified by the legislature in the statute defining "dwelling" (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 2-6(b)). In light of the Bales definition of "dwelling" and its later codification, the Thomas court indicated that its holding was not necessarily inconsistent with the reasoning in Dawson.

However, the factual situation here is not analogous to either Thomas, Bales, or Dawson. Whether the garage is part of the dwelling, in this instance, is not entirely dispositive. The defendant in Dawson was charged separately for entry into the garage and entry into the house. The Dawson court vacated the burglary charge because it found that entry into the garage and entry into the house constituted one entry. Where more than one offense is carved from the same physical act, the court reasoned, the defendant may only be convicted on the greater offense. Dawson, 116 Ill.App.3d at 675, 72 Ill.Dec. 260, 452 N.E.2d at 387.

Here, defendant was not charged with burglary for his entry into the garage. He was charged with burglary for his entry into the vehicle. In Dawson, the garage and house are one entity. However, here, the vehicle and house are singular entities. Moreover, neither of the defendants in Dawson or Borgen had broken in and stolen items from vehicles parked in the garages. Neither of these two defendants burglarized the vehicles parked in the garages. Defendant in the present case did.

The burglary statute states:

"A person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters or without authority remains within a * * * motor vehicle * * * with intent to commit therein a felony or theft." 720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2000).

Had defendant merely entered the home through the garage and continued past the vehicle, not entering it, he would only have been convicted of residential burglary. Even if he had stolen from both the garage and the house, he would only have been convicted of one residential burglary. However, his entry into and theft from the vehicle are separate crimes. The fact the vehicle was parked in the garage when it was burglarized does not decriminalize his unlawful entry into it. So, while the defendant's entry into the garage placed him within the dwelling, he committed a separate, distinct, and additional crime, committing burglary from a vehicle, once therein.

C. Residential Burglary and Burglary to a Vehicle Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Residential burglary was severed from the burglary statute in 1982. See Pub. Act 82-238, eff. January 1, 1982 (1981 Ill. Laws 1275, 1276) (adding ch. 38, par. 19-3); Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 519, 148 Ill.Dec. 751, 561 N.E.2d at 64. According to our supreme court's holding in People v. Childress, 158 Ill.2d 275, 302, 198 Ill.Dec. 794, 633 N.E.2d 635, 647 (1994), the offenses of residential and simple burglary are mutually exclusive. The court explained that "[residential burglary can be committed only in dwelling places, while simple burglary cannot occur in a dwelling place." Childress, 158 Ill.2d at 302, 198 Ill.Dec. 794, 633 N.E.2d at 647. More simply, if defendant committed residential burglary, he could not have simultaneously committed burglary. In Childress, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder, home invasion, burglary, and attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault. The victim knew the defendant, and there was evidence that she invited him into her apartment. At a sentencing hearing, the jury found the defendant eligible for the death penalty and no mitigating circumstances sufficient to preclude imposition of that sentence. The...