People v. Trujillo
| Decision Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4-21-0489 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOISES B. TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 17CF310 Honorable Ryan M. Cadagin, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held:
¶ 2 In April 2021, after a jury trial, defendant, Moises B Trujillo, was found guilty of first degree murder and armed robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate sentence of 80 years' imprisonment.
¶ 3 On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements, (2) the court held an insufficient Krankel hearing (People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984)), (3) the court failed to make an adequate record of its sentencing determination, and (4) defendant's sentence was subject to double enhancement. We affirm.
¶ 5 On March 17, 2017, the victim, Dezmeion Poole, agreed to provide cannabis for defendant. Poole had previously sold cannabis and Xanax to defendant, who both used and resold the drugs. Antonio Ragsdale and Caston Rosa accompanied defendant to Poole's apartment complex, but defendant entered the residence alone. During an altercation, defendant shot Poole and Poole later died of his injuries.
¶ 6 On March 21, 2017, defendant was arrested in relation to a failure-to-appear warrant related to Sangamon County case No. 16-CF-666. Detectives suspected defendant was involved in the death of Poole. Therefore, they placed him in an interrogation room before he was booked into jail on the failure-to-appear warrant. Before questioning, detectives gave defendant Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)). During the interview, defendant denied shooting Poole but admitted to purchasing drugs from him on March 17. After approximately five hours of questioning, the detectives left the room. While the detectives were gone, defendant placed a chair on the table and used it to climb into the ceiling. Officers pulled defendant out of the ceiling, and he fell to the floor and repeatedly asked the officers to kill him. The detectives terminated the interview and defendant was taken to the hospital.
¶ 7 After being released from the hospital, defendant was booked into the Sangamon County jail. The jail staff placed defendant in a high-risk cell due to his escape attempt and suicidal statements after being pulled from the ceiling.
¶ 8 On March 23, 2017, detectives conducted a second interview with defendant, during which he confessed to shooting Poole. On March 25, defendant requested to speak with detectives and confirmed his confession.
¶ 9 A grand jury indicted defendant for four counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (2), (3) (West 2016)) and one count of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(4) (West 2016)). After initially being appointed counsel, defendant elected to proceed pro se for a period.
¶ 11 In March 2019, defendant filed a pro se motion to suppress his statements to detectives. In his motion defendant argued his statements were involuntary and detectives coerced his statements under severe emotional duress. Defendant alleged detectives (1) denied him the right to make a reasonable number of phone calls, contact family, and obtain legal representation; (2) kept him in isolation; and (3) implied he would receive more lenient treatment if he confessed. Defendant also claimed he was a "worn-out drug addict with a low IQ and withdrawing from drug abuse after taking Xanax pills all week."
¶ 12 The State filed a written response and argued defendant was allowed to contact his mother and his girlfriend, Chris Kennedy, knew his whereabouts. The State further contended the detectives did not make any promises but merely encouraged defendant to tell the truth. According to the State, there was no evidence defendant was under the influence or withdrawing from any substance, and defendant was kept in a high-risk cell for only two days before his statements.
¶ 13 The trial court held a hearing on the motion, where the video recordings of defendant's March 21, 23, and 25 interviews were admitted. As the hearing was not finished on the first date, the matter was continued. At the next hearing date, defendant requested the appointment of counsel, which the court allowed.
¶ 14 Defendant's trial counsel filed an amended motion to suppress statements, which fully incorporated defendant's pro se motion. The amended motion further alleged defendant was arrested on a failure-to-appear warrant on March 21, but officers did not bring defendant before the court until March 27, in violation of requirements of the warrant and section 109-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Procedure Code) (725 ILCS 5/109-1(a) (West 2016)) to bring defendant before a judge "without unnecessary delay." The motion expanded on defendant's claim he was unable to contact family by arguing he was denied phone access in violation of section 103-3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (id. § 103-3). Finally, the motion argued detectives induced defendant's confession with specific promises. In response, the State incorporated its prior response to defendant's pro se motion and added an argument defendant was provided Miranda warnings.
¶ 15 The trial court held a two-day hearing on the amended motion. Detective Michael Flynn testified defendant was arrested on March 21, 2017, pursuant to a warrant. Officers placed defendant in an interrogation room, removed his handcuffs, allowed him to wash his hands, and provided him with water, food, and cigarettes. According to Flynn, defendant looked "fine," other than small, superficial scratches on his nose and forehead, and did not seem to be intoxicated. Before questioning defendant with Detective Paula Crouch, Flynn provided defendant with Miranda warnings. Flynn stated he made no specific promises and encouraged defendant to tell the truth. After approximately five hours, the detectives left the room. Once alone, defendant placed a chair on the table and used it to climb into the ceiling. Immediately, officers entered the room and pulled defendant out of the ceiling, and defendant fell to the floor. Defendant repeatedly asked officers to kill him. Before being taken to the hospital, defendant was allowed to see Kennedy. After his release from the hospital, defendant was booked into jail.
¶ 16 During the second interview with defendant on March 23, Flynn testified defendant asked to call his mother. Flynn responded, "When you're done talking and if you're honest, I don't have a problem with you calling her." Flynn explained defendant was placed in a high-risk cell due to his statements after being pulled from the ceiling. During this second interview, Flynn testified defendant confessed to killing Poole. After detectives finished speaking with defendant on March 23, he was allowed to call Kennedy, his mother, his brother, and an immigration official. Two days later, on March 25, defendant requested to speak with detectives again, where he confirmed his March 23 confession.. Defendant requested phone access during his third interview. Defendant's phone at the county jail was shut off because Ragsdale had not been located. He was given full phone access on March 27, though Ragsdale had not yet been located. Flynn testified he did not make any promises during the interviews.
¶ 17 During cross-examination, defendant offered into evidence: (1) the original arrest warrant, (2) the probable-cause statement for criminal damage related to defendant climbing into the ceiling, which showed bond set at $100,000, (3) court records in case No. 16-CF-666, which showed defendant was not brought before a judge until March 27, and (4) the probable cause statement for armed robbery entered March 23. The parties also stipulated to the admission of defendant's jail and hospital records.
¶ 18 Detective Crouch testified she assisted Flynn during defendant's interrogations. On cross-examination, Crouch acknowledged by the second interview, she was aware defendant had "some issues with Xanax."
¶ 19 Defendant moved for a directed finding on his motion to suppress his statements, which the trial court denied.
¶ 20 Defendant testified he was 23 years old at the time of the interrogations, he had a ninth-grade education, and Spanish was his first language. He admitted on cross-examination he had no issues speaking English. Defendant testified he had been arrested "a couple of times" and was familiar with the county jail system, but he had never been interrogated or given Miranda warnings. When defendant was arrested on prior occasions, his mother or brother would assist him in posting bond, but he testified he was not allowed to call them until after he gave his statement on March 23. On that date, defendant believed Kennedy was in custody because detectives showed him Kennedy's booking photos. According to defendant, he "felt like [...
To continue reading
Request your trial