People v. Patrick
353 Ill. Dec. 581
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Defendant Tyron L. Patrick was charged with reckless homicide (720 ILCS 5/9-3(a)) and four counts of failing to report an accident involving injury or death (625 ILCS 5/11-401(b)).
- He was convicted and sentenced in 2008 to consecutive terms including an extended term for reckless homicide and additional terms for the reporting offenses, with 85% service applied to the reckless homicide sentence.
- The judgments of conviction included counts I–IV for 11-401(b); counts II–IV were based on the same accident and related actions, and count I involved death; one count for reckless homicide was separate.
- Patrick timely appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence, potential lesser included offenses, the extended-term calculation, Rule 431(b) compliance, and ineffective-assistance issues raised in pro se motions.
- The appellate court vacated counts II–IV as violating one-act, one-crime, and reduced count I to a lesser included offense; it also vacated the 85% good-conduct-credit provision and remanded for resentencing and a Krankel hearing on pro se ineffective-assistance claims.
- The court affirmed some rulings, denied others, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of reporting element | State contends 11-401(b) proven; 6th element (half-hour report) lacking. | Patrick argues the State failed to prove the half-hour reporting requirement and juries weren’t properly instructed. | Counts I–IV reversed; 11-401(a) conviction affirmed as lesser included offense. |
| One-act, one-crime applicability | Counts II–IV justified as separate offenses from the same act. | Four convictions for leaving the scene of an accident violate one-act, one-crime rules. | Counts II–IV vacated; remanded for resentencing on a single remaining offense. |
| 85% service of sentence | State contends 85% credit was proper under statute. | 85% service for reckless homicide improper; credit should follow 3-6-3(a)(2.1). | 85% provision vacated; defendant entitled to one day of good-conduct credit for each day of imprisonment. |
| Rule 431(b) compliance | Rule 431(b) compliance is not reversible error if not prejudicial. | Failure to individually question on the defendant's non-testifying status warrants reversal. | Rule 431(b) violation deemed forfeited; but plain-error analysis found no reversible prejudice under current record. |
| Ineffective-assistance claims (Krankel) | Trial court should conduct Krankel inquiry for pro se claims. | Pro se claims warranted allocation of new counsel or at least a Krankel proceeding. | Remand for a Krankel hearing to determine whether new counsel is warranted or to deny claims on merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. King, 66 Ill.2d 551 (1977) (one-act, one-crime principle for overlapping acts)
- People v. Sleboda, 166 Ill.App.3d 42 (1988) (limited multiple convictions for leaving scene when only one scene exists)
- People v. Rowell, 229 Ill.2d 82 (2008) (authority to reduce degree of offense under Rule 615(b)(3))
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (Rule 431(b) violation not automatic reversible error; plain-error test applied)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (1984) (requirement to conduct a Krankel inquiry for pro se claims of ineffective assistance)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (2003) (procedure for appointing counsel on certain postjudgment claims)
- People v. Serio, 357 Ill.App.3d 806 (2005) (limits on pro se posttrial motions when defendant is represented)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain-error framework and analysis guidance)