People v. Janosek
2021 IL App (1st) 182583
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- On May 25, 2018 officers responded to a neighbor's complaint about "popping" sounds from a BB gun; one officer walked through the neighbor's yard into defendant's backyard through a tree line.
- Bodycam and officer testimony show defendant exited his basement, bent down, picked up a holstered black-and-gold object (stipulated to be a BB gun in a holster), briefly assumed a "shooter stance," then placed the object back down after officers ordered him to.
- Officer Lenos drew a Taser, took cover, threatened to tase if defendant shot, and then attempted to handcuff defendant; a physical struggle ensued and officers subdued and handcuffed him.
- Defendant was charged with aggravated assault (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1)) and two counts of resisting a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a)); bench trial resulted in convictions for aggravated assault and resisting as to Lenos only.
- Sentenced to one year conditional discharge, fines/fees, and surrender of FOID/CCP/firearms; defendant appealed raising: (1) improper warrantless search/entry of curtilage, (2) fatal defect in the aggravated assault complaint, (3) insufficiency of evidence, and (4) ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress/dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of officers' entry / motion to suppress | Officers were responding to a neighbor complaint about a BB gun; entry to investigate was reasonable | Entry into curtilage required a warrant; counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress | Claim forfeited (no pretrial suppression motion); record inadequate to evaluate ineffective-assistance-for-failing-to-move-to-suppress because relevant facts were not developed at trial |
| Sufficiency / defect in aggravated assault charging instrument | Complaint cited 12-2(c)(1) and described acts (picked up holster/B B gun, pointed it, attempted to remove it) so defendant was adequately informed | Complaint failed to recite statutory wording/elements and was therefore fatally defective; counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss | Because defect was raised for first time on appeal, defendant needed to show prejudice; he was not prejudiced—the complaint fairly apprised him of the offense and specific acts; counsel not ineffective on this ground |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault | Testimony and video support that defendant knowingly took a shooter stance with a device resembling a firearm, causing officer's reasonable apprehension of battery | Officers knew or suspected it was a BB gun; defendant had recent surgery/limited ability to comply, undermining apprehension and resisting elements | Viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational factfinder could infer defendant knowingly placed officer in reasonable apprehension (aggravated assault) and knowingly resisted handcuffing (resisting). Convictions affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move to dismiss/suppress | Counsel made reasonable strategic choices; dismissal/suppression motions likely would not have changed result | Counsel should have filed pretrial motions to suppress entry and to dismiss charge; failure was deficient and prejudicial | Strategic choices are highly deferential; record does not show motions would have been meritorious or would have changed outcome; ineffective-assistance claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rowell, 229 Ill. 2d 82 (2008) (charging-instrument defects raised during trial or posttrial are reversible only upon a showing of prejudice to the defense)
- City of Champaign v. Torres, 214 Ill. 2d 234 (2005) (resisting an arrest—even if the arrest is unlawful—violates the resisting statute)