People v. Jones
2017 IL App (1st) 143766
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 31, 2012 Sean Coleman was robbed in daylight; he memorized the getaway car and license plate, called 9-1-1, and shortly thereafter police located and stopped a matching vehicle.
- Defendant Fredrick Jones fled from police; his passenger escaped. Police detained Jones at 6330 S. Elizabeth St., handcuffed him, and presented him to Coleman for an on-the-spot showup within about 7–12 minutes of the robbery.
- Coleman identified Jones at the showup and later at trial; police recovered Coleman’s wallet and nearly $197 on Jones after his arrest. Defendant was charged with armed robbery and aggravated unlawful restraint; the latter was dismissed at trial.
- Defense counsel moved to suppress Coleman’s identification as unduly suggestive because Jones was handcuffed during the showup and because Coleman allegedly told defense counsel that an officer told him the wallet had been found on Jones.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion after evidentiary hearings; defense counsel later testified about the hallway conversation with Coleman. The court found the identifying testimony credible and convicted Jones of robbery; he was sentenced to 15 years.
- On appeal Jones argued (1) the showup was unduly suggestive, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for interviewing Coleman alone and not preserving that interview via a third-party witness or investigator, and (3) certain fines/fees should be offset by pretrial custody credit. The court affirmed the conviction and corrected the mittimus to apply additional pretrial credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the showup was unduly suggestive, requiring suppression of ID | State: showup was prompt, necessary, and not impermissibly suggestive; identification reliable | Jones: handcuffed custodial presentation was inherently suggestive and risked misidentification | Denied — no due process violation; totality of circumstances (lighting, short lapse, attention, accurate description) supported reliability |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for interviewing Coleman alone and not having a third-party witness or follow-up investigator | State: counsel’s conduct was reasonable under circumstances; counsel later testified and courts heard impeachment evidence | Jones: counsel’s solo hallway interview deprived defendant of impeachment/proof and was objectively unreasonable | Denied — counsel’s performance not deficient under Strickland and defendant failed to show prejudice; court would likely have denied suppression anyway |
| Whether failure to file an amended suppression motion citing the hallway interview was ineffective representation | State: motion to reopen effectively raised the issue before trial | Jones: counsel should have filed a contemporaneous amended motion | Denied — relief sought was granted (motion reopened) before trial; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Whether pretrial custody credit should offset fines/fees and which assessments are fines | State: concedes some statutory assessments are fines; others are fees under precedent | Jones: seeks credit against various assessments labeled fees but arguably fines | Partially granted — corrected mittimus to apply $115 additional pretrial credit, reducing total assessed fines/fees; certain automation fees remain classified as fees per controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (due-process test for unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures depends on totality of circumstances)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors to assess reliability of identifications under totality of circumstances)
- People v. Lippert, 89 Ill. 2d 171 (1982) (approval of prompt showups near the scene when necessary to assist police)
- People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564 (1977) (Illinois adoption of Biggers reliability factors)
- People v. Carroll, 12 Ill. App. 3d 869 (1973) (showup while defendant flanked by officers found unduly suggestive in that case)
- People v. Tyler, 28 Ill. App. 3d 538 (1975) (showup with handcuffed defendant not per se unduly suggestive)
- People v. DeLuna, 334 Ill. App. 3d 1 (2002) (appellate review may consider trial evidence when reviewing suppression rulings)
- People v. Thorne, 352 Ill. App. 3d 1062 (2004) (hot pursuit and immediacy can justify prompt showup)
- People v. Millsap, 2012 IL App (4th) 110668 (2012) (State Police operations assessment is actually a fine)
- People v. Smith, 2013 IL App (2d) 120691 (2013) (court systems assessment may be a fine)