People v. Villalobos

• Decision Date: 30 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-17-1512,1-17-1512
• Citation: 443 Ill.Dec. 301,2020 IL App (1st) 171512,161 N.E.3d 953
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 171512

161 N.E.3d 953

443 Ill.Dec. 301

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

v.Jesus VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-17-1512

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

OCTOBER 30, 2020

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Christopher Kopacz, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Christine Cook, and Daniel Piwowarczyk, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Justices Hoffman and Rochford concurred in the judgment and opinion.

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant-appellant, Jesus Villalobos, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress and erred in sentencing him. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State charged the defendant and his codefendants, Luis Valdez, Gonzalo Guerrero, Elena Rios, and Ray Guereca, with the following crimes: aggravated kidnapping of Shaun Jurgens and Raymond Jerz; first degree murder of Raymond Jerz; armed robbery and aggravated battery of Shaun Jurgens; and mob action. The defendant was 16 years old at the time of the crimes. The State ultimately proceeded against the defendant on only the charge of first degree murder. Prior to his trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress.

¶ 4 Motion to Suppress Hearing

¶ 5 A hearing commenced on the defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement in which he gave an inculpatory statement. The defendant based his motion on the assertion that the police had continued questioning him after he invoked his right to counsel. The defendant testified that, on December 5, 2012, he was arrested in Burly, Idaho, where he had been staying with a relative. After being held in a detention facility in Idaho for two weeks, Chicago police detectives Greg Jacobson and Mary Nanninga, along with Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Andres Almendarez (ASA Almendarez) came to Idaho to bring the defendant back to Chicago. They began talking with the defendant in the detention facility, but the defendant told them that he wanted an attorney. The two detectives and ASA Almendarez then "said okay and walked off" and did not ask the defendant any more questions.

¶ 6 The next day, the two detectives and ASA Almendarez picked up the defendant from the detention center and began the trip back to Chicago. They drove for 2½ hours to the Salt Lake City airport. The defendant testified that, approximately an hour into the drive, they stopped at a rest stop. Detective Nanninga and ASA Almendarez exited the car to use the restroom, leaving the defendant alone in the car with Detective Jacobson. According to the defendant, during that time, Detective Jacobson started "talking about the case" and telling the defendant that he "knew everything that happened that night." He also told the defendant that "all [his] rappies were pointing their fingers at [him] saying [he] did everything and that if [he] didn't help [himself], that [he] was going to be in a lot of trouble." Detective Jacobson's comments made the defendant feel scared, but he did not respond. Detective Nanninga and ASA Almendarez then returned to the car, and Detective Jacobson stopped talking to the defendant.

¶ 7 Once the group arrived in Salt Lake City, they stopped at a restaurant, where Detective Jacobson took the defendant to the restroom alone. The defendant testified that, once he was alone with Detective Jacobson inside the restroom, Detective Jacobson started talking about the case again. He told the defendant that he was young and needed to help himself. The defendant did not respond. They then returned to the table and ate lunch with Detective Nanninga and ASA Almendarez. Afterwards, they went to the airport.

¶ 8 According to the defendant, once inside the airport, Detective Nanninga and ASA Almendarez "went up to * * * show * * * the tickets." The defendant stayed back with Detective Jacobson, who "was getting mad." He again told the defendant that he "already knew everything and that all [his] rappies were tricking on [him]," so there was no point in staying silent. Detective Jacobson also told the defendant that he was "going to be in jail a long time," but if he talked to him and told his side of the story, Detective Jacobson would "talk to the judge" and "put in a word * * * to get time knocked off." The defendant felt afraid that if he did not talk to Detective Jacobson he would "be in jail for a long time." However, he still did not respond. Later, Detective Jacobson took the defendant to the restroom inside the airport. They were alone together inside the restroom, and Detective Jacobson told the defendant that he was going to be charged with murder if "he didn't tell him nothing." The defendant continued to remain silent.

¶ 9 On the plane, Detective Jacobson sat next to the defendant, ASA Almendarez sat in front of him, and Detective Nanninga sat across the aisle. Detective Nanninga started "naming all [the defendant's] rappies' nick names and people that were possibly involved in the case." She told the defendant that those people had "told on" him, that they were not his friends, and that he needed to help himself. Detective Jacobson joined in the conversation and told the defendant that, if he talked to them, "they would talk to the judge for [him] to try to give [him] a lower sentence." The defendant started thinking about his "freedom" and decided to give a statement to the police when they landed. Once they arrived in Chicago, they went to the police station, and the defendant gave a videotaped statement. For the videotaped statement, the defendant waived his right to counsel, but his mother was with him.

¶ 10 Detective Jacobson testified at the suppression hearing that he was assigned to investigate the murder of Raymond Jerz. A warrant was issued for the defendant's arrest, and on December 12, 2012, Detective Jacobson traveled to Burly, Idaho, with his partner (Detective Nanninga) and ASA Almendarez to extradite the defendant to Chicago. They went to the detention center to speak with the defendant, but he requested an attorney after being Mirandized, and the conversation ceased. See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

¶ 11 The following day, the two detectives and ASA Almendarez began transporting the defendant back to Chicago. They drove to the Salt Lake City airport and stopped at a rest stop along the way. At the rest stop, Detective Jacobson and ASA Almendarez took the defendant into the restroom together. Detective Jacobson testified that he was never alone in the car with the defendant and he never began a conversation with the defendant about the case.

¶ 12 Detective Jacobson further testified that they later stopped at a restaurant in Salt Lake City. Inside the restaurant, he was never alone with the defendant and never spoke with the defendant about the case. He did take the defendant to the restroom inside the restaurant, but ASA Almendarez accompanied them.

¶ 13 According to Detective Jacobson, he was never alone with the defendant at the airport and never gave him any legal advice. He took the defendant to the restroom at the airport, but again ASA Almendarez accompanied them. On the plane, Detective Jacobson sat next to the defendant. During the flight, the defendant suddenly asked Detective Jacobson "who snitched on" him. Detective Jacobson responded by informing the defendant that, because he had asked for an attorney, he could not speak to him about the case. The defendant stated, "everybody must have snitched on me I want to tell my side of the story." The defendant then told Detective Jacobson that he would give him a statement without an attorney, but he requested that his mother be present with him for the statement. Detective Jacobson told the defendant that, as soon as they landed, they would contact his mother. The conversation then ended.

¶ 14 Upon their arrival in Chicago, the defendant was transported to the police station. His mother arrived a few hours later. Detective Jacobson re-Mirandized the defendant in the presence of the defendant's mother and Detective Nanninga. The defendant then provided a videotaped statement to the police, which was played for the trial court.

¶ 15 At the beginning of the videotaped statement, Detective Jacobson said to the defendant: "Let me hear your side of it. If you know everybody else is telling on you. That's what you told me. You said, everyone's tricking on you, right?" The defendant responded by saying, "You told me that." Detective Jacobson replied, "Okay."

¶ 16 On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Detective Jacobson about that exchange:

"Q. [Y]ou were talking to [the defendant] and you said to him, you know that people were snitching on you. You told me that. He responded, no, you told me that. Indicating that you, Detective, told him that someone was snitching on him, correct?

A. That's correct.

* * *

Q. You said, okay, after he said you told him that?

A. Yes, I did.

* * *

Q. [Y]ou did not say I did not tell you that; did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You did not deny that you had told him that; did you?

A. No, I did not."

¶ 17 ASA Almendarez testified about the group's trip from Idaho to Chicago. He testified that, when their group stopped at the rest stop, he went into the restroom with Detective Jacobson and the defendant. When they were all at the restaurant, he and Detective Jacobson took the defendant into the restroom together. Detective Jacobson was never alone with the defendant, and he never heard Detective Jacobson speak to the defendant about the case.

¶ 18 During arguments on the motion, the defendant...