People v. Jackson
2016 IL App (1st) 133823
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- In July 2007 defendant Rodney Chaney Jackson and codefendant Leonard Moore approached victims at a White Castle; Moore displayed a gun, took property, and got into a running Pontiac Bonneville; Jackson drove the Bonneville away. Police later pursued and stopped the car; Moore was arrested at the scene and a gun was found in or near the vehicle; no gun was found on Jackson.
- Jackson was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated vehicular hijacking, two counts of attempted armed robbery, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and aggravated assault; he received concurrent prison terms (including 25-year terms on the hijacking counts and a 19-year term on one attempted-robbery count).
- At trial Moore testified that he alone planned and committed the robbery, that Jackson did not participate in the robbery, did not have a gun, and only got into the Bonneville because Moore told him to; Moore admitted he never threatened Jackson with the gun.
- Jackson’s trial counsel proffered a compulsion instruction; the trial court refused the instruction citing lack of prior notice to the State (the court said it would have given it if notice had been shown). Jackson later appealed.
- On appeal Jackson argued (1) he was entitled to a compulsion instruction, (2) one hijacking conviction must be vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule, (3) certain firearm-sentence enhancements applied at sentencing were unconstitutional when the offenses occurred, (4) the 15-year enhancement does not apply to attempted robbery, and (5) the mittimus must be corrected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson was entitled to a jury instruction on compulsion | State: No timely notice; evidence insufficient to show imminent threat to Jackson | Jackson: Prior counsel gave notice; Moore’s possession and orders compelled Jackson to drive | Denied — even assuming notice issue, evidence (Moore’s testimony) did not show an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm so no compulsion instruction was warranted |
| Whether both aggravated vehicular hijacking convictions can stand (one-act, one-crime) | State: Multiple victims present justify multiple convictions | Jackson: Single taking of one car is a single act and cannot support multiple convictions | Vacated one hijacking conviction — single taking of one vehicle is one crime even if multiple victims were present; remand to identify which conviction to vacate |
| Whether sentencing firearm-enhancements applied at Jackson’s sentencing were constitutional at the time of offense | State: Agreed enhancements were unconstitutional as applied to these offenses at the time; curative statute took effect after offense | Jackson: Sentences must be vacated or corrected because enhancements were void when offenses occurred | Remand for resentencing — the enhancements were facially unconstitutional at the time of the offenses, so sentences must be imposed under pre-enhancement statutes |
| Whether mittimus must be corrected to reflect verdicts and oral sentence | State: Agreed mittimus is incorrect | Jackson: Mittimus does not match jury verdicts or oral pronouncements | Remand — trial court must issue corrected mittimus on resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mack, 105 Ill.2d 103 (court held a single taking of property in the presence of multiple people supports only one armed-robbery conviction)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156 (one-act, one-crime rule and remedy for multiple convictions based on single physical act)
- People v. Taylor, 2015 IL 117267 (remedy when sentence was imposed under a facially unconstitutional sentencing statute)
- People v. Unger, 66 Ill.2d 333 (compulsion/necessity requires imminent threat of death or great bodily harm)
- People v. Milton, 182 Ill. App.3d 1082 (mere possession of a gun by a co-offender, without threats, does not support compulsion instruction)