2020 IL App (3d) 180147-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Ernest D. Starks was charged with child pornography, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and two counts of criminal sexual assault based on videos and victim testimony.
- Starks asked his cousin, Cassadia King, to set up his phone and online account; after his daughter E.S. reported he recorded sexual videos of them, King accessed the account, recovered videos from its trash bin, burned them to a disc, and gave the disc to police.
- Starks moved to suppress the videos, alleging King committed eavesdropping by retrieving private electronic communications; the trial court denied suppression.
- Immediately before a stipulated bench trial, the court incorrectly told Starks consecutive sentencing was discretionary and the sentencing range was 6–60 years; the parties stipulated to testimony establishing repeated sexual contact and that the videos depicted E.S.
- After conviction, the court corrected the admonition, stating consecutive sentences were mandatory (making the minimum 12 years); Starks moved to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial, which the court denied; Starks was sentenced and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Starks' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether videos were obtained by unlawful eavesdropping | King did not intercept a private communication; Starks lost any expectation of privacy by giving King account access and intending to publish | King unlawfully intercepted private electronic communications by retrieving videos from the account’s trash | Denial of suppression affirmed: no reasonable expectation of privacy as to King; no statutory "intercept" because access occurred after upload |
| Whether court’s incorrect admonition about consecutive sentencing vitiated Starks’ knowing waiver of jury trial | Misstatement of possible penalty is not automatic grounds to vacate a plea/waiver | Court’s repeated misstatement of the minimum sentence (6 instead of mandatory 12 years) meant waiver was not knowing | Reversed: court materially misstated sentencing, prejudiced Starks, and abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw waiver |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to advise on mandatory consecutive sentences | Not reached on appeal | Counsel failed to inform Starks that consecutive sentences were mandatory | Not reached (court reversed on admonition/withdrawal issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d 530 (Ill. 2006) (standard of review for suppression rulings; deference to trial court factfinding)
- People v. Deleon, 227 Ill.2d 322 (Ill. 2007) (definition of "manifest weight" standard for reversing factual findings)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy framework)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (Fourth Amendment protection for stored electronic communications discussed)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (privacy interests in cell-phone data under the Fourth Amendment)
- People v. Phillips, 215 Ill.2d 554 (Ill. 2005) (Fourth Amendment limits government action; private-party searches distinguished)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (standards for valid waiver of constitutional rights)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (waiver must be voluntary and knowing)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d 507 (Ill. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denying motions to withdraw pleas/waivers)
- People v. Davis, 145 Ill.2d 240 (Ill. 1991) (misapprehension of law affecting a defendant’s decision can vitiate waivers)