People v. Palen
2016 IL App (4th) 140228
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Scott Palen was charged with attempted residential burglary and possession of burglary tools for a September 2012 incident; trial began Sept. 30, 2013.
- During voir dire the first day, counsel and defendant agreed on eight jurors who were sworn; proceedings recessed overnight.
- The next day, lead ASA Tharp could not continue (family death). The trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial without consulting counsel; a second trial began Nov. 13, 2013.
- At the second trial witnesses placed Palen at the apartment, observed him use a pry bar on a window, and police recovered a pry bar and gloves; jury convicted on attempt and possession counts.
- The trial court had admitted defendant’s 2009 residential burglary conviction for limited-purpose (intent/knowledge) evidence before trial.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions, held jeopardy had not attached because only eight jurors were sworn, affirmed admission of other-crimes evidence and most sentencing rulings, vacated the extended term on the lesser offense, and denied a Krankel remand for ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Palen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy barred retrial after mistrial declared after eight jurors sworn | Jeopardy had not attached because jury selection was incomplete; court could properly declare mistrial | Jeopardy attached when the eight jurors were sworn; mistrial lacked manifest necessity so retrial was barred | Jeopardy had not attached; empanelment was incomplete (court intended 12 jurors + alternates); retrial allowed |
| Admissibility of prior 2009 burglary conviction (other-crimes evidence) | Prior conviction admissible for intent/knowledge; limiting instruction given | Admission was improper propensity evidence and prejudicial | Admission upheld as limited-purpose evidence of intent/knowledge; even if error, conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence |
| Sentencing: whether court erred in weighing mitigation/aggravation, and imposition of extended term for possession (Class 4) | Trial court properly weighed factors and law permits extended term only on most serious offense | Court misstated record and failed to consider mitigation; also challenged extended-term on Class 4 conviction | Sentencing discretion not abused re: mitigation/aggravation or 10-year extended term for Class 2; but six-year extended term for Class 4 was unauthorized and vacated; remand for resentencing on that count |
| Whether trial court erred by not conducting a Krankel inquiry into pro se ineffective-assistance claims | Defendant did not bring his letter to the trial court’s attention (it was mailed to appeals clerk); claims were forfeited | Claims merited inquiry/remand | No Krankel inquiry required because defendant failed to present his pro se complaints to the trial court; claim forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1978) (jeopardy in a jury trial attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn)
- Martinez v. Illinois, 134 S. Ct. 2070 (U.S. 2014) (reiterating bright-line rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn)
- Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1973) (public interest in fair retrial where appropriate)
- Dreyer v. People, 188 Ill. 40 (Ill. 1900) (trial court may discharge a jury for necessity)
- People v. Jordan, 103 Ill. 2d 192 (Ill. 1984) (extended-term sentences may be imposed only on convictions within the most serious class)
- People v. Boaz, 222 Ill. App. 3d 363 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (holding that empanelment was not complete where the twelfth juror had not been sworn)