People v. Walker
| Decision Date | 10 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4-19-0073 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL R. WALKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 15CF1062 Honorable John W. Belz, Judge Presiding.
James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Michael Gomez, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Daniel K. Wright, State's Attorney, of Springfield (Patrick for Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Timothy J. Londrigan State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
OPINION
¶ 1 In October 2015, defendant, Michael R. Walker, was charged by information with multiple counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Counts I, II, and III charged predatory criminal sexual assault under section 11-1.40(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2014)) as nonprobationable Class X felonies, punishable by 6 to 60 years' incarceration (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(b)(1) (West 2014)). These three counts fell under mandatory consecutive sentencing guidelines. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(d)(2) (West 2014). Counts IV and V alleged aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(c)(2) (West 2014)), Class 2 felonies with potential penalties ranging from probation to three to seven years' incarceration (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(g) (West 2014)). All five counts alleged the crimes took place from May 2015 to July 2015 and involved the same victim, S.W., who was seven years old at the time of the alleged incidents. The State dismissed count II before the close of evidence.
¶ 2 After a two-day trial in May 2018, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts (I, III, IV, and V). The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections on count I to run consecutively to his 15-year sentence on count III. Additionally, the court sentenced defendant to five years' imprisonment on counts IV and V. Defendant's motion to reconsider the sentence was denied, and defendant appeals.
¶ 4 In October 2015, defendant was charged with three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse arising from allegations he abused and assaulted S.W., his seven-year-old niece. Defendant's jury trial commenced in May 2018. The State called two law enforcement officers who responded to the scene and investigated the allegations. Dr. Careyana Brenham testified as an expert in child abuse investigations. She described her education, experience, and training in conducting child sexual assault examinations and the procedure involved in conducting such examinations. Dr Brenham's examination of S.W. occurred shortly after S.W. disclosed the allegations to her mother while vacationing in Wisconsin. Dr. Brenham said S.W. told her defendant touched her in the genital area and pointed to the corresponding area on a female anatomical chart. S.W. told Dr. Brenham defendant touched her there approximately "30 times," including digital penetration, and at times this caused her pain. S.W. also said defendant "licked her" and "bit her" in the genital area approximately 25 times. She said all but one of the assaults happened in defendant's bedroom. Although Dr. Brenham did not see any bruising or tearing in the vaginal area at the time of her examination, she said that was not unusual, considering S.W. reported defendant last abused her over a month prior to the exam.
¶ 5 S.W.'s father testified that, during the time the sexual assaults were taking place, defendant lived with their father in one farmhouse while S.W.'s father lived in another farmhouse approximately 150 yards away. When S.W. came to visit her father, she would often play outside or spend a significant amount of time playing video games or watching movies in defendant's bedroom. S.W.'s father said the extensive interaction between S.W. and defendant made him feel uncomfortable because defendant would spend more time with S.W. than with him. He testified about receiving the phone call from S.W.'s mother in July 2015, the substance of which was to inform him of the recent disclosure S.W. made to her while S.W. and her mother vacationed in Wisconsin. S.W.'s mother said S.W. told her defendant repeatedly sexually assaulted her in his bedroom while she visited the farm in the summer of 2015. After receiving the call, S.W.'s father said he relayed this information to his father and they both confronted defendant about the accusation. S.W.'s father asked defendant to either admit or deny the accusation, and if true, they would attempt to get him some form of treatment. Defendant responded "yes." S.W.'s father contacted the police two days later and made a report.
¶ 6 During S.W.'s mother's testimony, she provided more detail about the statement S.W. made to her during the Wisconsin trip. She said, while they were getting cleaned up after swimming, S.W. told her that "[defendant] has been touching my vagina." S.W. also told her about the last time the abuse occurred, saying defendant put his mouth on S.W.'s vagina, biting it, and forced her to touch his penis.
¶ 7 S.W. was 10 years old at the time of the trial. She testified that, when she was seven or eight years old and visited the farmhouse during the summer of 2015, she would enter defendant's bedroom to play video games or watch movies. Defendant would shut the door "[t]o make sure no one else saw what we were doing." While lying on the bed, she would pull down her pants and defendant would touch the inside of her vagina or put his mouth on it, occasionally biting her vagina. She said these things made her feel "weird and uncomfortable." S.W. testified she knew what was going to happen in defendant's bedroom because it had happened before. She "knew it was wrong" but "didn't want to tell anybody because [she] thought [she] was going to get in trouble." She described being gone for six months while her family lived in Ireland and that, upon her return, the sexual abuse began again. S.W. said she asked defendant if it could stop. Defendant would "put on a sad face." S.W. allowed the sexual assaults to continue because "I didn't want to have that guilt on me of making somebody sad." She described how defendant would touch her vagina with his hand or mouth and, when with his hand, "he would open up the outside of it and touch the inside." S.W. said she had also seen defendant's penis "accidentally" and touched it when he told her to. S.W. said when they were at her "grandpa's cabin in Wisconsin," she told her mother about defendant putting his mouth on her vagina. She said she was able to tell her mother when they were in Wisconsin because she believed "no one could get [her] there." She also said she had waited to tell because she "thought it was [her] fault." The defense had no cross-examination.
¶ 8 The parties then stipulated to S.W.'s video recorded interview at the Child Advocacy Center (CAC), which was published to the jury. Lindsey Reichert, a forensic interviewer with the CAC in Sangamon County and the person who interviewed S.W., testified about the interview and identified her interview notes and the demonstrative male and female anatomical drawings used during the interview, which were admitted into evidence. At the close of the State's case, defendant elected not to testify or present any other evidence. After the two-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts. The matter was referred to court services for a presentence investigation report and set for sentencing in November 2018. Defendant, who at this stage of the proceedings had been through three attorneys and had filed one of several motions for substitution of judge for cause, filed a series of pro se posttrial motions. Defendant sought transcripts of all court appearances and transcriptions of audio-recorded interviews, a "Motion for New Trial and Krankel Hearing with Leave to Amend," a "Praecipe" directed at the circuit clerk to send him copies of all his motions, and a "Motion to Proceed Pro Se." During this same time, defendant's retained counsel filed a motion for a new trial.
¶ 9 By the time of the hearing on the posttrial motions and sentencing, defendant maintained he was no longer represented by counsel. After failing to persuade the trial court there was evidence of counsel's ineffectiveness during a preliminary Krankel inquiry (see People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984)), defendant reiterated his desire to represent himself. The trial court provided Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401 (eff July 1, 1984) admonishments, and defendant elected to proceed as his own counsel. The sentencing hearing was continued to give him sufficient time to file his own motion for a new trial. After protracted litigation addressing additional motions for substitution of judge and an effort to file a notice of appeal, the matter then proceeded to a hearing on defendant's posttrial motion and sentencing in March 2019. Before proceeding to sentencing, the trial court denied defendant's motion for a new trial. The court then heard arguments from the parties and victim impact statements from S.W.'s family members. Defendant presented no evidence in mitigation. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of 15 years on each predatory criminal sexual assault count and concurrent sentences of 5 years on each criminal sexual abuse count.
¶ 10 Defendant's pro se motion seeking to reconsider his sentence argued (1) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial