People v. Wade
41 N.E.3d 256
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On March 8, 2013, Greg Dismuke was shot in a strip-mall parking lot; 16 9mm shell casings from two different guns were recovered. Multiple eyewitnesses identified Jerrell W. Wade and Jonathan D. Wade as shooters.
- Both defendants were jointly tried on identical indictments charging attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm; Jerrell also faced unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.
- Indictments alleged the defendants “shot Greg Dismuke about the body with a handgun” and that the discharge caused injury.
- The jury found both defendants guilty and specifically found both (1) personally discharged a firearm and (2) personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement—triggering mandatory 25-year sentencing enhancements.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the court erred by instructing the jury on sentence-enhancing facts not alleged in the indictments; they requested plain-error review because no contemporaneous objection was made.
- The trial court and the record (arraignment discussion and pretrial disclosures) reflected that defendants had notice the State would seek the firearm-related sentencing enhancements; the State presented medical evidence showing Dismuke sustained serious injuries from the gunshots.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by instructing the jury on sentence-enhancing facts not pleaded in the indictment | State: Indictments and pretrial proceedings sufficiently notified defendants that the State would seek the 25-year firearm enhancement; Apprendi/Alleyne satisfied by submitting the facts to the jury | Defendants: Indictments charged only "simple" attempted murder; instructing on aggravating factors that were not pleaded deprived them of notice and amounted to error | Held: No error. Indictments (read as a whole) and arraignment/pretrial disclosures put defendants on notice; no structural error and plain-error review fails |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 218 Ill.2d 125 (discussing forfeiture by failure to object)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (plain-error framework)
- People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166 (plain-error doctrine explanation)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (structural error discussion)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (classification of certain errors)
- People v. Morris, 135 Ill.2d 540 (reading multiple-count indictment as a whole)
- People v. Rowell, 229 Ill.2d 82 (notice of elements requirement)
- People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318 (indictment sufficiency standard on pretrial challenge)