People v. Burton
38 N.E.3d 182
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On June 16, 2012, Raul Ventura discovered his car had been broken into at the Bar Processing Corporation plant; he and his supervisor, Deandra Akins, saw Edward Burton standing near the open trunk.
- Ventura identified an iPod later recovered from Burton’s pocket as belonging to him. Burton was arrested and charged with burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a)).
- At trial the State introduced photographs of the plant parking lot, one showing a red “no trespassing” sign on the gate; defense objected that the sign was irrelevant, prejudicial, and not shown to exist on the date of the offense.
- Defense requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass to a vehicle; the court gave the instruction over the State’s objection but did not ask Burton whether he agreed with counsel’s request.
- The jury convicted Burton of burglary; he was sentenced as a Class X offender to nine years’ imprisonment. The mittimus initially credited 282 days; the parties later agreed 314 days should have been credited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of parking-lot photograph showing “no trespassing” sign | Photo was relevant to show location where crime occurred and was properly admitted | Photo was irrelevant, prejudicial, and suggested an uncharged trespass; State failed to prove sign existed on date of offense | Admission not an abuse of discretion; photo relevant and not improper other-crimes evidence; forfeiture/ineffective-assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice |
| Failure to ask defendant if he agreed to tender lesser-included instruction | State opposed instruction but court allowed it | Burton argued court should have asked him to confirm he agreed with counsel’s request under Medina | Court erred in not making the inquiry, but the error was not plain error because defendant did not show prejudice and was not convicted of the lesser charge |
| Sentence length (nine years as Class X) | State: within statutory range and supported by discretion of trial court | Burton: nonviolent record, disabilities, mental-health issues, and mitigating evidence warrant reduction to statutory minimum (6 years) | Sentence within statutory range; no abuse of discretion or showing the court failed to consider mitigation; affirmed |
| Mittimus credit for presentence custody | State concedes correction needed | Burton sought correction from 282 to 314 days | Mittimus corrected to reflect 314 days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ramey, 152 Ill.2d 41 (defendant’s core decisions vs. counsel’s tactical decisions)
- People v. Brocksmith, 162 Ill.2d 224 (defendant‘s exclusive right to decide on tendering lesser-included instruction)
- People v. Medina, 221 Ill.2d 394 (trial-court inquiry required when tendering lesser-included instruction)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (plain-error doctrine scope and burden)
- People v. Bannister, 232 Ill.2d 52 (initial step in plain-error analysis — determine whether error occurred)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- People v. Jackson, 399 Ill. App. 3d 314 (discussion of improper other-crimes evidence)
- People v. Calderon, 393 Ill. App. 3d 1 (failure to comply with Medina not reversible where defendant not convicted of lesser offense)