People v. Green
51 N.E.3d 856
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Lester Green was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery with a firearm and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon after a July 18, 2011 shooting outside a Chicago bar; he was acquitted of attempted first‑degree murder.
- Witnesses testified Green approached the victim, returned to his car, then came back with his hands in his pockets, fired a shot through his pocket, removed a gun and fired again, and during a struggle the gun discharged and the victim was hit in the thigh.
- Physical evidence: a .380 semiautomatic recovered near the scene, two shell casings fired from that gun, gunshot residue in Green’s pant pockets, and a hole in Green’s pocket; stipulations included medical and firearms testimony and Green’s prior felony.
- At trial Green requested a jury instruction on the lesser‑included offense of reckless conduct; the trial court denied it.
- Posttrial Green filed a pro se ineffective‑assistance motion; the court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry in which trial counsel was sworn and the State was permitted to examine and argue—court denied relief.
- Sentencing: 30 years on aggravated battery, 7 years on unlawful use of a weapon (the court ordered the weapon conviction merged into the battery conviction); appeal followed raising jury‑instruction, Krankel, mittimus, and fines/fees issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying reckless‑conduct instruction | State: evidence showed intentional shooting toward victim, so reckless instruction not warranted | Green: jurors could find he only intended to scare the victim and that the injury occurred during the ensuing struggle, supporting reckless conduct | Denial affirmed — evidence showed intentional/knowing conduct (pointing and firing toward victim), not mere recklessness |
| Whether preliminary Krankel hearing was proper | State: hearing procedures were adequate | Green: hearing was improper/adversarial because counsel was sworn and State examined and argued | Reversed and remanded for a new Krankel hearing (State conceded error) |
| Whether mittimus should be corrected to reflect merger of weapon conviction | State: concedes mittimus should be corrected | Green: seeks correction to show only single aggravated battery conviction | Ordered: mittimus corrected to reflect merger per trial court’s order |
| Whether fines/fees and presentence credit were correct | State: agreed to several adjustments and proposed assessing felony complaint fee; some fees are legitimate | Green: challenged several fees (DNA fee, minor traffic/quasi‑criminal fees, automation fee, and requested presentence credit) | Court vacated $250 DNA fee, vacated $30 and $25 fees, upheld $2 Public Defender Records Automation fee as a fee not a fine, applied agreed $4,355 presentence credit toward eligible fees, and ordered corrected totals (total $527 with $65 presentence credit; balance $462) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (standards for court’s inquiry into pro se ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Garcia, 165 Ill. 2d 409 (Ill. 1995) (trial court discretion on jury instructions reviewed for abuse)
- People v. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d 239 (Ill. 1998) (distinguishing reckless conduct from higher culpability; lesser‑included instruction standards)
- People v. Luckett, 339 Ill. App. 3d 93 (Ill. App. 2003) (de novo review for whether evidentiary minimum met for instruction)
- People v. Roberts, 265 Ill. App. 3d 400 (Ill. App. 1994) (fact pattern where jury could find reckless conduct during a struggle)
- People v. Jackson, 372 Ill. App. 3d 605 (Ill. App. 2007) (pointing and shooting a gun at someone is more than mere recklessness)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (Ill. 2006) (distinguishing fines from fees)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (Ill. 2009) (characterization of assessments as fines or fees relevant to constitutional limits)