People v. Whitehead
| Docket Number | 1-23-1008 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 IL App (1st) 231008 U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAQUILLE WHITEHEAD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.No. 22 CR 02900Honorable Angela Munari Petrone, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1Held: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County convicting defendant of armed habitual criminal (AHC); the trial court did not consider facts not in evidence or abandon its role as neutral arbiter to deny defendant a fair trial; the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and the AHC statute is constitutional under the United States and Illinois constitutions.
¶ 2The State charged defendant, Shaquille Whitehead, with armed habitual criminal (AHC), unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and three counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.Following a bench trial, the circuit court of Cook County found defendant guilty of AHC and UUWF.The court merged the conviction for UUWF into the conviction for AHC and sentenced defendant to six years' imprisonment for AHC.Defendant appeals the conviction on the grounds (1)the trial court denied defendant a fair trial by considering facts not in evidence and abandoning its role as neutral arbiter of the facts and adopting the role of prosecutor, (2)the State failed to prove him guilty of every element of the offense of AHC beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the AHC statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to defendant under both the United States ConstitutionandIllinois Constitution.
¶ 3 For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 5 The charges against defendant arose from a traffic stop of a vehicle defendant was driving with one passenger.The State called one of the officers who stopped defendant's vehicle as its only live witness at defendant's bench trial.The State also submitted into evidence footage from the testifying officer's body worn camera and the footage from the body worn camera of one of the other officers involved in the traffic stop, but the second officer did not testify.
¶ 6 Officer Axel Gallardo of the Chicago Police Department testified that on February 9, 2022, he and his partner Officer Rojas Yesenia, conducted a traffic stop.Officer Gallardo approached the passenger side of the vehicle and his partner approached the driver's side of the vehicle.Officer Gallardo observed two people in the vehicle.He identified defendant as the driver.Defendant did not have a valid driver's license and the officers decided to tow the vehicle.At that time, defendant was already out of the vehicle.Officer Gallardo asked the passenger to exit the vehicle but the passenger did not immediately exit the vehicle.Officer Yesenia recovered a loaded handgun from the pocket of a jacket the passenger was wearing.Officers eventually removed the passenger from the vehicle and placed him into custody.
¶ 7 Officer Gallardo testified that after police placed the passenger into custody they conducted an inventory search of the vehicle.During the inventory search, police found a firearm "In the middle of the backseat on top of a child's car seat."The car seat was in the middle of the backseat of the vehicle.Officer Gallardo testified he did not see the gun immediately because there was a blanket on top of the firearm.There was nothing else on top of the firearm other than the blanket.Officer Gallardo removed "a laundry basket, clothes, and the blanket" before he recovered the gun.The gun was loaded, it had an extended magazine, and it had a laser sight.
¶ 8 Officer Gallardo testified that at the time of the traffic stop he was wearing a body worn camera.The State published the footage of the traffic stop from Officer Gallardo's body worn camera to the trial court without objection.Officer Gallardo verbally described his actions.Officer Gallardo testified that he was searching the vehicle defendant had been driving.He removed a plastic bag containing clothes.He recovered the firearm.Officer Gallardo testified he recovered the firearm He pointed out the exact area of the car seat where he recovered the firearm.The State asked that the record reflect "that the officer pointed on the car seat."The trial court asked the officer to point again and the court clarified that the officer "pointed to an area that's kind of reddish or pink on the car seat which is to the left of the white basket as one is looking at the [image.]"The court asked if the officer recovered the firearm "from the top of that which is now gray or black ***?"Officer Gallardo identified the side of the car seat.The court asked, "Where did you recover it?"The officer responded, "Where the child usually sits."The court stated, and the officer responded, "Yes."The State stopped the recording.
¶ 9 Officer Gallardo testified that he spoke to defendant with his partner present.The officer read defendant his Miranda rights, after which he asked defendant who was the registered owner of the vehicle.The officer testified that defendant stated the registered owner was his sister.The officer testified that defendant also stated that "he came back from doing laundry" at the laundromat, "and he said that he had no knowledge of the firearm."
¶ 10 Upon further examination by the State, Officer Gallardo testified there were two people in the vehicle and no one was seated in the backseat.The State asked the officer to "describe how the blanket was placed over the gun."The officer testified, "It looks like the blanket was placed over the gun."The blanket was partially folded.When asked what he meant by "partially" the officer testified, "It looks like it was just thrown into the car seat ***."The firearm was within arm's reach of where defendant was seated and there was nothing else covering the firearm besides the blanket.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, Officer Gallardo testified that defendant was being cooperative with Officer Yesenia.When asked to exit the vehicle defendant did so.Officer Gallardo admitted that the passenger was also within arm's reach of the firearm recovered from the backseat of the vehicle.The passenger did not get out of the car when asked and officers eventually had to physically remove the passenger from the vehicle.Officer Gallardo agreed he had no way of knowing how long the firearm was in the car seat or how long the passenger or defendant were in the car.Officer Gallardo testified defendant told him he was coming back from doing laundry and the officer found a bag of laundry and a laundry basket in the car.The bag of laundry and the laundry basket were not on top of the firearm.Officer Gallardo had no idea how long the blanket had been there.
¶ 12The State did not perform a redirect examination and asked that the officer be excused.The trial court asked the defense if it needed the officer to stay and the defense stated it had no objection to the officer being excused.The trial court initially excused the officer, but then stated the court had "a couple of questions of the officer."The officer retook the stand and the court asked the officer what type of handgun he found.The officer responded, "It's and FN firearm."The officer could not recall what the abbreviation "FN" meant or the caliber of the firearm.The State refreshed the officer's memory with his case report, and the officer testified that, "It's an FN 509, nine millimeter."The court asked whether the officer recalled the type of vehicle defendant was driving.Officer Gallardo testified only that "It's a black vehicle."He refreshed his memory again and stated, "Black Chevy, ma'am;" but the officer could not recall the kind of Chevy.The trial court asked the State and the defense whether either had any questions based on the court's questions and both responded they did not.
¶ 13The State informed the trial court it had no further live witnesses and that it would be proceeding by stipulation.The parties stipulated that the footage of Officer Rojas's body worn camera was a true and accurate depiction of the events.The trial court admitted the recording into evidence and the State published the video to the court.The court also admitted selfauthenticating certified copies of defendant's two prior convictions for burglary.
¶ 14The State rested its case and the defense moved for a directed finding.The trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed finding and the parties proceeded with closing arguments.At the conclusion of the parties' arguments the court stated it wanted "to look up some law about guns found in vehicles" and continued the matter.
¶ 15 On December 8, 2022, the trial court issued its written order following the bench trial.The court found defendant guilty of AHC and UUWF."The Statenolle prosequi[the remaining counts.]"The trial court's written order states, in pertinent part, that the officers stopped "a small black Chevrolet."When asked for his driver's license and insurance defendant could not produce them and said, "Coming right from the laundromat."Defendant complied with the officer's request to exit the vehicle.The court wrote: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial