People v. Lawrence
2020 IL App (1st) 171399
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Laurence and Arrington were married; after a July 2015 fight Arrington evicted Laurence, placed his clothes outside, and (she testified) changed the locks.
- On January 5, 2016 Laurence entered Arrington’s home at night, threatened Arrington and her boyfriend, and assaulted Arrington; a broken garage window and a brick were found at the scene.
- Laurence was arrested and tried by bench trial; the court convicted him of home invasion but acquitted on kidnapping; he was sentenced to six years.
- At a post-trial new-trial hearing Laurence offered a lease (bearing Arrington’s signature and Laurence’s printed name) to show tenancy; the trial court treated the lease as insufficient to defeat home invasion because Arrington had barred him.
- Arrington obtained an order of protection after the trial; the written order contained no statutory findings.
- On appeal the court (1) held the lease admissible under Rule 803(15) but affirmed the home-invasion conviction because evidence showed Laurence had been barred and forcibly entered, (2) reversed the order of protection for failure to make required findings, and (3) refused to address fines/fees on appeal under Supreme Court Rule 472 and remanded for postconviction correction proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person named on a lease can still be guilty of home invasion | Lease not authenticated; even if, Laurence had been excluded and therefore lacked right to enter | Lease lists Laurence as tenant and his keys worked, so he had a tenancy/right to enter | Lease admissible under Ill. R. Evid. 803(15); court nonetheless affirmed home-invasion conviction because Arrington had barred Laurence, he lived elsewhere, and he forced entry (brick/broken window) |
| Whether the trial court complied with Domestic Violence Act requirements when entering an order of protection | Court had sufficient testimony to grant protection | Court failed to make the written/recorded findings required by 750 ILCS 60/214(c) | Reversed the order of protection and remanded for proceedings because the court did not set forth the statutorily required findings |
| Whether appellate court may review fines, fees, and costs now | State: Rule 472 requires trial-court first opportunity to correct such errors | Laurence: trial court erred in assessments and appellate relief is appropriate | Appeal barred by Ill. S. Ct. R. 472 because defendant did not first raise the sentencing errors in circuit court; remand to allow motion to correct |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Howard, 374 Ill. App. 3d 705 (addresses possession/tenancy and home-invasion analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Robbins, 662 N.E.2d 213 (explains factors—marital status, separation, locks, names on lease—relevant to possession/right to enter)
- People v. Hollenbeck, 944 P.2d 537 (applies Robbins factors in similar fact pattern)
- State v. Singley, 709 S.E.2d 603 (examines custody/control and expectation of security vs. mere title for burglary-type offenses)
- Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683 (supports admissibility of documents affecting property interests under hearsay exception)
- Botsford Gen. Hosp. v. Citizens Ins. Co., 489 N.W.2d 137 (discusses indicia of reliability for documents affecting interests in property)