People v. Watkins

Decision Date31 July 1992
Docket NumberNo. 1-90-1790,1-90-1790
Citation232 Ill.App.3d 719,597 N.E.2d 897
Parties, 173 Ill.Dec. 923 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Office of State Appellate Defender, Chicago (Maria A. Harrigan, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Jack O'Malley, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Maureen Harton, Daniel P. Nikolic, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice LaPORTA * delivered the opinion of the court:

Ronald Watkins was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 55 years in prison. He appealed contending: (1) he was denied his right to a fair trial when the State introduced evidence of defendant's subsequent arrest for murder in direct violation of an order in limine barring such testimony; (2) the prosecutor's introduction of defendant's aliases deprived defendant of a fair trial because such evidence was immaterial and irrelevant and prejudiced the jury against him; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to appoint new counsel for defendant at his post-trial motion when defendant specifically alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective.

Defendant Ronald Watkins was charged with armed robbery in August of 1987. Before trial, the judge granted a defense motion in limine barring any State witness from mentioning before the jury that defendant had been arrested on a murder charge in Texas subsequent to the alleged armed robbery.

At the April 1990 trial the State called several witnesses, including the victim, John Bowen, and another person, Lawrence Davis, who was the victim of a similar crime charged against defendant in a different indictment and who could also identify the defendant.

Bowen, a roofer living in Harvey on August 21, 1987, testified at trial that he went to Ken's food and liquor store that evening at about 10 p.m. to buy some juice. Before he entered the store a man and a woman asked him to help jump start their car. He testified that he went into the store and when he returned he asked the couple where their car was located. They told him it was across the street and then they entered his car, the man seated to his right and the woman in the back seat. After he drove a little, he asked them again where their car was located but instead of answering, the man put a gun in Bowen's mouth and the woman put a knife to his neck. Bowen identified the defendant as the man who put the gun in his mouth.

Bowen testified that the defendant told him: "This is a stick-up. This is a robbery. Give me your money." Bowen said he took off his watch and gave the defendant his watch and money. He testified that he drove another block before defendant told him to pull over and when he did, the defendant came around to the driver's side of the car and pushed Bowen to the passenger side. He told Bowen to undress and throw his clothes out the window. Bowen said defendant hit him twice in the head with a chrome revolver. He heard the lady in the back seat say, "Let's do him like we did the other ones. Let's take him and kill him and throw him in the canal."

When the defendant told Bowen he would be killed, Bowen testified that he struggled to get the gun away from the defendant. The defendant told the woman to stab Bowen with her knife and she stabbed him in the side. Bowen testified that he grabbed the knife and bent it while he continued to struggle with defendant. As a result, the defendant drove the car into a ditch. Bowen testified that people began to gather around as he continued to struggle with the defendant, who then fled.

When the police arrived, Bowen found the knife in the muddy water but the gun was not found. Bowen testified that the woman was arrested at the scene after he identified her. He identified the knife used in the robbery.

He testified that on September 16, 1987 he went to the Harvey police station to look at photographs of possible suspects. He identified for the jury the same picture of Watkins that he had recognized and identified at the police station that day.

On cross-examination, defendant's attorney questioned Bowen's ability to identify defendant in the car since he did some of the driving and the whole incident occurred at night after dark and while driving on side streets. Bowen testified that he did not recall whether he told police what color his assailant's pants were or whether his assailant had a beard or was clean shaven. He acknowledged that he did not tell the police about any scars the assailant had on his body. He testified that 9 of the 10 photographs he observed at the police station had the words, "Harvey Police Department" stamped on them and that defendant's picture had no such stamp.

On redirect examination he stated that the parking lot at the food store was well lit, enabling him to see defendant's face. He stated that he did not pick out defendant's picture from the photo line-up based on whether the words "Harvey Police Department" was stamped on it.

Lawrence Davis testified that at about 3 a.m. on August 18, three days before Bowen's assault, he, Davis, was lost while driving and he stopped three people on the street and asked them for directions. He testified that a man in a red shirt and black pants gave him directions and asked whether Davis could give the three of them a ride to a nearby liquor store. He identified defendant as the man in the black pants and red shirt. Davis testified that he agreed and the defendant and his two friends, a man and a woman, climbed in the car.

As they drove, defendant asked Davis to stop. Davis stopped and defendant's male companion in the back of the car jumped out and ran into a building and then returned. Davis testified that a few minutes later, the defendant asked him to stop again and when he did, defendant got out of the car, opened Davis' door and hit him in the face with a nickel-plated revolver. Davis said defendant told him, "This is a stick-up."

Davis testified that defendant took his wallet and told him to take off his clothes. Davis testified that the defendant told him to crouch down in the front seat of the car and take his clothes off and throw them out the window. Davis testified that when he looked up momentarily, the defendant told him if he looked up again he "was going to blow my face off." Davis testified that they drove a little longer before the defendant had him get out of the car, crouch down and that defendant then drove away.

Davis testified that when the car left, he found a man who gave him some clothes and took him to the police station. He testified that he returned to the station September 16, 1987 and identified defendant as his assailant after viewing a group of pictures. Davis testified that he also saw defendant's male companion standing in the station. He then identified the man for police officers. At trial he identified a photo of the man for the jury.

On cross-examination, Davis testified that he was not drinking the evening of the assault. He admitted that while he and the other three drove around that night, the man in the red shirt and black pants sat in the back of the car and he could not see the man's face. He testified, however, that he did see the man in the red shirt and black pants after he was hit in the face with the gun and the man climbed into the front seat of the car and started driving.

Before trial resumed the next day and outside the presence of the jury, the defendant moved that the court appoint new counsel for him. He argued that he was not receiving effective assistance of counsel, in part, because he was represented by two public defenders, one who had used profane language with him and told him "if I don't cop out he's not going to at no time fight this case. If I goes before a judge or I take a jury trial I was going to be found guilty of all charges pending against me any way." Defendant argued that he could not receive a fair trial and asked for a private attorney.

Assistant States Attorney Linehan informed the court that the defendant had prior criminal convictions and if found guilty could be sentenced to natural life under the habitual offenders statute. Linehan stated that the defendant should be informed of this before the court admonished defendant of his right to represent himself.

The trial judge informed defendant that he would not appoint a private attorney "at this late date" but told defendant he had a right to fire the public defenders and represent himself. The judge warned defendant that he would have to comply with the rules of evidence, subpoena his own witnesses and conduct his own cross-examination. Defendant responded that he did not know how to represent himself and did not want to act as his own attorney but he also did not want the two public defenders representing him. The trial judge took a break to give defendant a chance to think about whether he wanted to represent himself. When court resumed, defendant refused to answer when asked whether he wanted to proceed alone. The judge ordered the public defenders to continue to represent defendant and the jury trial resumed.

Harvey Police Officer Percy Cornelious testified that on August 21, 1987 he was dispatched to an armed robbery in progress at 153rd and Western in Harvey. When he arrived he found a red vehicle in a drainage ditch and found a man, later identified as Bowen, standing in the street without clothes and bleeding. He testified that Bowen told him he had been robbed at gunpoint and knife point.

Cornelious testified that he also spoke to someone at the scene who refused to identify himself that gave him the name "Parion." Defense counsel's objection to the hearsay testimony was overruled. Cornelious testified that a woman named Kim Downs was taken into custody at the scene after Bowen identified her as the woman who stabbed him. He testified that a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Jocko
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 30, 2009
    ...that the Krankel blueprint, recited above, also applies to the handling of pretrial claims. People v. Watkins, 232 Ill.App.3d 719, 731-34, 173 Ill.Dec. 923, 597 N.E.2d 897 (1992); People v. DeRossett, 262 Ill.App.3d 541, 543-46, 199 Ill.Dec. 903, 634 N.E.2d 1257 (1994). These two cases are ......
  • People v. King
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 12, 1997
    ... ...         In reaching our decision, we find a case cited by neither side to be instructive, People v. Watkins, 232 Ill.App.3d 719, 173 Ill.Dec. 923, 597 N.E.2d 897 (1992). In Watkins, the trial court granted a motion in limine barring any State witness from mentioning that the defendant had been arrested on a murder charge in Texas. On direct examination of a police officer, the prosecutor elicited ... ...
  • People v. Watkins
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1992
    ...157 People v. Watkins (Ronald) NO. 74246 Supreme Court of Illinois NOVEMBER TERM, 1992 Dec 02, 1992 Lower Court: 232 Ill.App.3d 719, 173 Ill.Dec. 923, 597 N.E.2d 897 Disposition: ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT