2021 IL App (1st) 170744
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- June 22, 2016: 15-year-old Marcus Williams encountered two men (Donald Profit and an unidentified male) walking together near 61st St. and Ellis Ave.; the unidentified man grabbed Marcus’s shirt and slapped Marcus’s phone away.
- Marcus testified Profit stood nearby with his hand inside his jacket/waistband, leading Marcus to fear Profit had a weapon; Marcus identified Profit in a photo array.
- Surveillance video shows a brief (≈6-second) interaction in which the two men approach Marcus, the unidentified man turns back and engages Marcus, and Profit moves a step or two toward them then walks off; a later clip shows the two men walking together minutes later.
- At a bench trial the court found Profit guilty of attempted robbery (lesser included from aggravated attempt) and unlawful restraint, merged the latter into attempted robbery, and sentenced Profit to 4 years’ imprisonment (mittimus erroneously listed unlawful restraint).
- Profit appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to hold him accountable for the unidentified man’s acts and (2) he should not be required to register under the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act because he was not convicted of a qualifying offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (accountability for attempted robbery) | Circumstantial evidence (walking together before/after, Profit’s hand in waistband, the other man spoke to Profit) supports finding Profit shared intent or common design | Profit only stood nearby, did not touch victim or take phone; video shows brief interaction and no blocking — mere presence insufficient | Affirmed conviction for attempted robbery; viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find accountability. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (unlawful restraint) | Same accountability theory as to attempted robbery | Same: insufficient — Profit merely present and not the actor | Not addressed on merits because no sentence imposed on unlawful restraint; nonfinal as to that count and it merged into attempted robbery. |
| Mittimus correction & registration under Violent Offender Against Youth Act | State: even if not sentenced on unlawful restraint, the finding that the restraint was part of the same act means Profit must register | Profit: mittimus should be corrected to reflect only attempted robbery; without a conviction (judgment + sentence) on a qualifying offense, registration is not required | Mittimus corrected to show conviction only for attempted robbery; Profit not required to register because he was not convicted/sentenced for a qualifying violent offense against youth. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958 (deference to trier of fact and sufficiency standard under Illinois law)
- People v. Ward, 215 Ill. 2d 317 (same Jackson/Gray sufficiency framework applied in Illinois)
- People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301 (accomplice liability requires intent to aid or shared criminal design)
- People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66 (no final judgment when sentence not imposed on a finding of guilt)
- People v. Relerford, 2017 IL 121094 (limitations on appellate review of nonfinal unsentenced findings and remand for sentencing)