People v. Moore
2014 IL App (1st) 112592
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Moore was charged with residential burglary for May 5, 2009 at 6646 S Maryland Ave; the owner/occupancy status and intent to reside were disputed.
- Moore waived counsel and represented himself for a pretrial motion to quash, then elected to be represented again for trial; counsel was later appointed.
- At trial, testimony showed Moore fled the basement area with a furnace blower and the basement door appeared kicked in; the owner testified about occupancy and condition of the building.
- The trial court denied a directed finding on residential burglary, found Moore guilty, and sentenced him; on appeal, the conviction was reduced to burglary and fines were adjusted.
- Three fines/fees were found improper and were vacated; the case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the burglary conviction and the fines adjustments
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the dwelling element in residential burglary | Moore argues no evidence showed owners resided or planned to reside within a reasonable time. | State relied on owner’s intent to rent or live there eventually; evidence insufficient. | Evidence failed to prove dwelling element; reduced to burglary. |
| Effect of Rule 401 admonishments on waiver of counsel | Moore asserts incomplete advisements require new trial. | Admonishments were deficient but not prejudicial under the limited circumstances. | Not prejudicial; no new trial required. |
| Fines and fees improper; post-judgment adjustments | Certain fees were improperly assessed. | Disputed the legality of the fees. | Vacated DNA analysis fee, electronic citation fee, and State Police operations fee; remanded for resentencing as to conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roberts, 2013 IL App (2d) 110524 (Ill. App. 2d 2013) (interpreting dwelling element requiring actual residence or intentional residence within a reasonable time)
- People v. LeFlore, 2013 IL App (2d) 100659 (Ill. App. 2d 2013) (Rule 401 substantial compliance standard for waiver of counsel)
- People v. Ware, 407 Ill. App. 3d 315 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2011) (substantial compliance and prejudice considerations for waivers of counsel)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (prejudice cannot be presumed when waiver is incomplete; limited prejudice analysis may be conducted in some circumstances)
- Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2008) (prejudice analysis in waiver contexts discussed by Supreme Court)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of prejudice where no counsel at a critical stage is clear default; exceptions exist when conduct is not prejudicial)
- People v. Roberts, 2013 IL App (2d) 110524 (Ill. App. 2d 2013) (central authority for dwelling element interpretation in residential burglary cases)