2020 IL App (1st) 171514-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Defendant David Farr recorded fraudulent documents in the Cook County Recorder’s Office as to six Chicago residential properties in foreclosure, changed locks, lived in one (Wood) and leased/rented others. Authorities recovered leases and documents bearing Farr’s signature.
- Farr was indicted on multiple counts (theft, financial-institution fraud, continuing financial-criminal enterprise, burglary, title-clouding); the State proceeded on selected counts. A jury convicted Farr of financial-institution fraud, theft exceeding $1,000,000, and continuing a financial criminal enterprise; convictions were merged into a single Class X theft.
- At arraignment Farr was found indigent and the public defender was appointed; later Farr sought to represent himself and the court accepted a pro se waiver after colloquy. Farr then proceeded to trial without standby counsel.
- Trial evidence: FBI and Chicago PD agents, bank representatives, and real-estate professionals testified about the fraudulent filings, possession/control of the homes, costs banks incurred to reclaim and secure properties, Broker Price Opinions (BPOs), eventual sale prices, and appraisals. Farr presented no evidence.
- The trial court sentenced Farr to 14 years’ imprisonment. On appeal Farr challenged (1) the validity of his self-representation under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 401(a) and (2) whether the State proved the value element (that the stolen property exceeded $1,000,000), arguing the proper measure was use value and/or the State failed to prove fair-market value at the time of the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of pro se waiver under Rule 401(a) | State: Court substantially complied—Farr was asked twice about ability to hire counsel, public defender was appointed, Farr acknowledged receipt of the indictment, and the court read the charges before trial. | Farr: Court failed to inform him of the nature of charges and that indigent counsel would be available throughout trial; waiver therefore not knowing/voluntary. | Court: Substantial compliance with Rule 401(a); waiver valid; no plain-error prejudice shown. |
| Proper measure of value for theft of occupied homes | State: Theft valuation is the property’s fair cash market value at time/place of the taking; Farr exerted control over full bundle of rights (possession, exclusion, disposal), so market value applies. | Farr: He only obtained use/occupancy (not title); at most proved rental/use value, not full-market value. | Court: Rejected Farr’s analogy to hotel-room cases; control and intent to permanently deprive can support market-value measure. Market value is the correct measure. |
| Sufficiency/timing/foundation of market-value proof | State: Bank reps, brokers, BPOs, sale prices, appraisals and unrebutted testimony provided a sufficient factual basis; timing and arm’s-length issues go to weight for the jury. | Farr: Evidence was untethered to the exact time of the offenses, lacked arm’s-length assurances, BPOs are not appraisals, and foundation for witnesses’ valuation was inadequate. | Court: Evidence (sale prices, unpaid balances, BPOs, witness testimony, photos, condition testimony) was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find fair cash market value > $1,000,000; many foundation complaints were forfeited or went to weight, not admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312 (Ill. 2007) (fair cash market value is the proper measure and small-scale/control analogies considered)
- People v. Krantz, 58 Ill. 2d 187 (Ill. 1974) (entire record may be considered to determine whether defendant understood nature of charge)
- People v. Harden, 42 Ill. 2d 301 (Ill. 1969) (opinion testimony of a qualified witness, unrebutted, may establish market value)
- People v. Dell, 77 Ill. App. 2d 318 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966) (witness opinion of value admissible and sufficient absent contrary evidence)
- People v. Todaro, 14 Ill. 2d 601 (Ill. 1958) (cost evidence, together with other proof, may suffice to establish fair cash market value)
- Cook County Bd. of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Bd., 384 Ill. App. 3d 472 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (in property valuation, sales-comparison approach and arm’s-length sales are preferred indicators of fair market value)
- People v. Castro, 109 Ill. App. 3d 561 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) (fair cash market value—not original cost—is the relevant criterion in theft cases)