People v. Fein
93 N.E.3d 610
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Fein and co-defendant Lorraine Adams were charged with armed robbery for taking a purse from Marquianna Anderson; Fein was tried and convicted by jury of theft from a person (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A)) and acquitted of armed robbery. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
- Incident facts: Anderson withdrew $300 from a bank, encountered Fein and Adams in a shopping-center parking lot, and later recovered her purse but missing cash; she consistently told police Fein displayed a gun and identified both defendants in photo arrays.
- Fein’s defense: he testified the encounter was a “pigeon drop” con in which Anderson voluntarily gave him $290; he denied showing or carrying a gun.
- Jury instructions included both armed robbery and theft from a person; the jury convicted Fein of theft but not armed robbery.
- Posttrial, Fein filed a pro se petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for requesting the theft instruction; the trial court denied claims and sentenced him. Fein appealed raising sufficiency of evidence, failure to conduct a Krankel inquiry into his pro se ineffective-assistance claim, and an incorrect mittimus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft by unauthorized control | The State: evidence (victim testimony, ID in photo arrays, immediate police report) supports that Fein took purse/money without permission | Fein: acquittal on armed robbery implies jury rejected victim’s testimony that a gun was used and must have accepted his account that Anderson voluntarily gave money | Affirmed — viewing evidence in favor of prosecution, a rational jury could find unauthorized control beyond a reasonable doubt; jury could credit parts of victim’s testimony while rejecting armed-weapon element |
| Trial court’s duty under Krankel to inquire into pro se ineffective-assistance claim | State: court considered filings and implicitly rejected claim as meritless or trial strategy; no further inquiry required | Fein: his pro se petition alleged counsel was ineffective for requesting the theft instruction and court failed to make a preliminary Krankel inquiry after determining Fein was fit to proceed | Remanded — court did not adequately inquire into the factual basis of the pro se ineffective-assistance allegation; remand for preliminary Krankel inquiry required |
| Mittimus accuracy / felony classification | State: concedes error in mittimus | Fein: mittimus lists armed robbery (Class X) though conviction was theft by obtaining unauthorized control (Class 3) | Remanded with directions to correct mittimus to reflect actual conviction and classification |
| (Procedural) Remedy for mittimus errors | Not argued as separate issue by parties | Fein seeks correction | Court directs trial court to correct mittimus; affirms conviction in part and reverses in part only to the extent of remanding for Krankel inquiry and mittimus correction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (ill. 1984) (trial court must inquire into pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (Ill. 2009) (apply Jackson standard and view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213 (Ill. 2009) (State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311 (Ill. 2010) (conviction will not be overturned unless evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory as to create reasonable doubt)
- People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236 (Ill. 2001) (trier of fact not required to accept defendant’s version of events)
- People v. Rivera, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1015 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (trier of fact may accept portions of testimony it finds credible)
- People v. McCarter, 385 Ill. App. 3d 919 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (discusses scope of Krankel inquiry and appointment of new counsel if claim shows possible neglect)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (reviewing adequacy of Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142 (Ill. 2014) (standard of review for whether trial court properly conducted preliminary Krankel inquiry)