People v. Woods
| Decision Date | 24 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-15-3323,1-15-3323 |
| Citation | 2018 IL App (1st) 153323,140 N.E.3d 798,435 Ill.Dec. 748 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
¶ 1 Courtney Woods was found guilty after a bench trial of two counts of armed robbery ( 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2), (3) (West 2012) ) and sentenced to concurrent terms of 34 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he argues his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination was violated at sentencing, when the trial court ordered him to participate in a presentence investigation (PSI) by speaking with the investigator, and information that he told the investigator was then used against him to increase his sentence. He also argues that one conviction must be vacated in light of the one-act, one-crime doctrine and that some of his fines and fees should be vacated. We vacate Mr. Woods's sentence and remand for resentencing, with directions.
¶ 3 Mr. Woods was charged in a 20-count information with attempted first degree murder, armed robbery, armed habitual criminal, aggravated discharge of a firearm, vehicular invasion, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW), unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, aggravated battery, and aggravated unlawful restraint.
¶ 4 The testimony at trial was that, on September 15, 2012, Tiffany House and her husband Anton Brown drove to a restaurant in Chicago and parked in the back area. Before Mr. Brown went inside to place an order, he gave Ms. House $1850 in cash, the money Ms. House had given him earlier that day when they were shopping for a car. Ms. House was in the car counting the money when Mr. Woods came out of the back of the restaurant carrying a white bag and walked past the car into an alley. Less than five minutes later, Mr. Woods returned and came up to the passenger side of the car with a revolver. Ms. House's window was down, and Mr. Woods put the gun to Ms. House's head and demanded the money.
¶ 5 Ms. House screamed for her husband and pushed the car door towards Mr. Woods. She threw the money and ran from the car towards the back door of the restaurant. Mr. Woods followed her and pushed her against the wall of the restaurant, but Ms. House was able to get past him and run inside. Mr. Brown came out and saw Mr. Woods picking up the money before running away and he chased after Mr. Woods into an alley. Mr. Woods fired his gun at Mr. Brown and missed, then continued running.
¶ 6 Either the same night or the following night, Ms. House began to investigate a website containing thousands of mugshots of people recently arrested in Cook County. Ms. House was able to find a photograph of the person that she thought had robbed her. She then spoke with a police detective and showed him the picture she printed from the website.
¶ 7 Mr. Woods was arrested one week later. On September 26, 2012, both Ms. House and Mr. Brown viewed a physical lineup at the police station and both separately identified Mr. Woods as the person who robbed Ms. House and shot at Mr. Brown.
¶ 8 The trial court found Mr. Woods guilty of all charges. In response to Mr. Woods's motion for a new trial, the trial court reconsidered its ruling and found Mr. Woods not guilty of the three counts of attempted murder. Mr. Woods was sentenced on two counts of armed robbery, one premised on Mr. Woods's possession of a firearm and the other on his personal discharge of a firearm. The trial court then ordered a PSI report.
¶ 9 The initial PSI report contained no information beyond a recitation of Mr. Woods's criminal history and the official version of the offense. The "Summary" section stated that Mr. Woods "respectfully declined to answer any questions pertaining to his investigation." At a hearing after the return of the PSI report, the following exchange occurred:
¶ 10 Mr. Woods then completed an interview for a PSI, and a new PSI report was filed with the trial court. This revised PSI report included Mr. Woods's statements regarding his social and educational background. The investigator reported that Mr. Woods "admitted" he was a former member of the Mafia Insane Vice Lords street gang. Mr. Woods told the investigator he joined the gang at age 13 but left at age 24 because he wanted to be a positive role model for his younger half-brothers. Mr. Woods told the investigator he had a good childhood and that his " ‘whole world literally collapsed’ " when his mother, who was his "best friend," died of breast cancer in 2006. Mr. Woods started " ‘running the streets’ " and getting into trouble after his mother died. Mr. Woods reported completing eighth grade but then dropping out because " ‘his heart wasn't in it.’ " In the section of the report titled "Defendant's Version of the Offense," the investigator noted that "[Mr. Woods] did not wish to comment on the facts of this case upon the advice of his attorney." The report set forth his criminal history, including that he received probation for a 2006 AUUW conviction, which was terminated unsatisfactorily, and consecutive three-year terms of imprisonment in 2007 for robbery and AUUW.
¶ 11 At Mr. Woods's sentencing hearing, the State emphasized his criminal background and his previous affiliation with the Mafia Insane Vice Lords gang. Based on Mr. Woods's prior gun and robbery convictions, and because Mr. Woods was now found guilty of armed robbery with personal discharge of a firearm, the State asked for a substantial amount of prison time.
¶ 12 In mitigation, defense counsel pointed to the facts in the PSI report that Mr. Woods was raised by his mother without his father's involvement and that his stepfather was killed during a robbery when Mr. Woods was 10 years old. The defense stressed that Mr. Woods's mother tried to keep Mr. Woods and his two younger brothers safe by frequently moving them around to different places and that, as a result, Mr. Woods did not progress in school and never completed high school. Counsel informed the trial court that Mr. Woods first entered the Illinois Department of Corrections in 2006, which was the same year his mother died from breast cancer. Counsel concluded by pointing out to the trial court that, despite his problems, Mr. Woods made sure his younger half-brothers finished high school, obtained good jobs, and had good lives.
¶ 13 The trial court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, noting the seriousness of the offense, which created a terrifying situation for the victim when Mr. Woods fired his weapon. The trial court also lamented the "sad state of affairs" in the city where people had to worry about their own lives when they go out to eat in the neighborhood. The court recounted Mr. Woods's prior criminal history where Mr. Woods was given opportunities with supervision and probation but noted "weapons do keep tending to reappear in [Mr. Woods's] life."
¶ 14 The trial court stated that "[t]here's only so much the court system can do if you're not willing to accept the help and to try to change your ways." It noted that Mr. Woods had a great mother and there was no evidence of any abuse or neglect in Mr. Woods's childhood, but he still "continued to be involved in gangs and guns." With respect to school, the trial court noted:
¶ 15 The trial court went on to note, from the PSI report, that Mr. Woods had "more than other students do, and you just drop[ped] out," that he "could have had the, you know, help of the * * * teammates and the basketball team and your coach, * * * but instead, you go to the streets and hang out with the gang members." It reiterated that "gangs and guns" was his repeated choice.
¶ 16 The trial court then made a finding that there had been no great bodily harm to either of the victims, which made Mr. Woods eligible for day for day good time. The court sentenced Mr. Woods to 34 years' imprisonment "on the armed robbery with a gun" and stated "[t]he other counts will merge." This sentence was eight years more than the minimum sentence of 26 years. Armed robbery was a Class X felony with a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years and there was a mandatory 20-year sentencing enhancement based on the finding that Mr. Woods discharged a firearm. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2012).
¶ 17 In addition to the prison sentence, Mr. Woods was also assessed fines and fees in the amount of $924. The mittimus reflects convictions under count IV, armed robbery with a firearm, and count V, armed robbery with personal discharge of a firearm, with concurrent sentences of 34 years' imprisonment for each. Mr. Woods filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which the trial court denied.
¶ 19 Mr. Woods was sentenced on September 18, 2015, and timely filed his notice of appeal that same day. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ) and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 and 606, governing appeals from final judgments of conviction in criminal cases (Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 603, 606 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) ).
¶ 22 Mr. Woods argues his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Richards
...appeal, a defendant must raise the issue in the trial court, including through a written motion to reconsider the sentence. People v. Woods , 2018 IL App (1st) 153323, ¶ 24, 435 Ill.Dec. 748, 140 N.E.3d 798. But an unpreserved claim of sentencing error may be reviewed under plain error anal......
-
People v. Marcum
...the defendant completed an interview for a new presentence investigation report, which was filed with the trial court. Woods, 2018 IL App (1st) 153323, ¶ 10. reviewing court noted the trial court appeared to have taken only a negative view of information in the new presentence investigation......