People v. Sharp
2015 IL App (1st) 130438
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Keyshon Sharp was retried for a multi‑shot, near‑fatal June 21, 2011 shooting of Nicholas Coleman; second jury convicted him of attempted first‑degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm; total sentence 55 years (25 + 30).
- At retrial the State relied on eyewitness identifications (victim, his father, and a neighbor) and a photographic lineup; defense presented an alibi supported by a daycare sign‑out sheet and one witness.
- During the second trial at least five jurors received anonymous calls telling them to report two hours late; one juror who received a call to a non‑card number was excused and an alternate seated over defense objection.
- The trial court used a non‑pattern, modified instruction for attempted first‑degree murder that added language regarding personal discharge of a firearm; defense did not object at trial.
- The State elicited the shooter’s nickname "Baby Stone" and admitted a redacted ‘wanted’ poster; voir dire included questions about gang familiarity; defense argues these items improperly suggested gang affiliation.
- Postconviction/posttrial counsel (new counsel) requested free transcripts, then declined or failed to present substantive argument at posttrial motion hearing and offered limited mitigation at sentencing; defendant claims ineffective assistance and denial of counsel at critical stages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sharp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror contact by anonymous calls | Court properly investigated; calls were limited to arrival time and did not show bias | Trial court should have questioned jurors further/admonished or declared mistrial; presume prejudice | Forfeited; no plain error — trial court did not abuse discretion and no evidence jurors were biased |
| Modified jury instruction (attempt + firearm language) | Modified instruction accurately stated law as applied and fairly informed jury | Instruction misstated law by mixing firearm enhancement language into attempt instruction, confusing jury | No reversible error; instruction viewed as a whole was proper; ineffective‑assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice |
| Gang‑related evidence (voir dire, nickname, wanted poster) | Questions and evidence were relevant to identification and investigation; not used to show propensity | Voir dire primed jurors to infer gang membership; nickname and poster prejudicial | No abuse of discretion — voir dire properly screened bias; nickname and poster admitted for limited, non‑propensity purposes (identification/arrest) |
| Ineffective assistance (trial and posttrial counsel) | Counsel conducted reasonable strategy; omissions did not prejudice outcome; Cronic not triggered | Trial counsel failed to object/adduce alibi or third‑party confession testimony; posttrial counsel failed at motions and sentencing | Strickland standard applied; most claims fail as strategic choices or lacked prejudice; Cronic presumptive prejudice not warranted |
| Sentencing & firearm enhancement vagueness | Enhancement statute and sentencing within statutory bounds; court considered aggravation/mitigation | 55‑year aggregate sentence excessive; 25‑to‑life firearm enhancement unconstitutionally vague | Sentence affirmed as proportionate and within statutory range; enhancement not unconstitutionally vague |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (forfeiture of issues not raised at trial)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain error doctrine framework)
- People v. Runge, 234 Ill. 2d 68 (trial court discretion in juror‑misconduct inquiry)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances permitting presumed prejudice for counsel absence)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (principles on jury impartiality and judicial vigilance)
- People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (Rule 451(c) and substantial jury‑instruction defects)