People v. Wright, 91 N.E.3d 826

Background

Eugene Wright was charged with armed robbery with a firearm for a December 26, 2010 Bakers Square restaurant robbery; a codefendant (Morgan) was identified as the gunman.
Wright waived counsel and proceeded pro se after multiple Rule 401(a) admonitions; the trial court misstated the statutory maximum as 60 years (actual max 75 years due to enhancement).
At trial, eyewitnesses identified Morgan as brandishing a gun and identified Wright as the second offender; police recovered restaurant money from Morgan and rolls of coins from Wright’s stopped van; a BB gun was found near the scene a week later but not tied by fingerprints.
Wright was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and sentenced to 50 years (State had sought 60; defendant was eligible for up to 75).
On appeal the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the Rule 401(a) admonishment error rendered Wright’s waiver of counsel unknowing; this Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument (Plaintiff)	Wright's Argument (Defendant)	Held
Validity of waiver of counsel under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 401(a) (admonishment misstated max sentence)	Substantial compliance; waiver was knowing, voluntary, intelligent despite erroneous statement of max (60 v. actual 75)	Misstatement of maximum sentence meant Rule 401(a) not substantially complied with; waiver invalid	Court: Substantial compliance; waiver valid. Error in stating 60 v. 75 did not prejudice Wright; conviction stands.
Challenge to grand jury indictment (alleged deceptive grand jury testimony regarding recovered weapon)	Grand jury testimony was not deceptive; no evidence the BB gun was tied to the robbery so testimony that no gun had been recovered was not false or misleading	Detective Lee’s grand jury testimony omitted that a BB gun was later recovered; that would have prevented indictment for armed robbery with a firearm	Court: No prosecutorial misconduct rising to due-process violation; indictment stands.
Sufficiency of evidence that robbery was committed with a firearm (vs. BB gun)	Eyewitness testimony (Perez, Tsegaye, Morina) provided sufficient, direct observations to support inference of a real firearm	Evidence of a BB gun found nearby and only a brief view of the gun by witnesses undermines proof of a firearm	Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably infer codefendant had a firearm; conviction affirmed.
Admission of codefendant’s statement (that he used a BB gun) and trial court’s duty to instruct on definition of "firearm" sua sponte	Trial court properly excluded the unavailable declarant’s statement because Wright (pro se) never pursued admission after Fifth Amendment invocation; no sua sponte instruction required where defendant did not request it	Statement against penal interest (804(b)(3)) was corroborated and essential; court should have admitted it; and court should have sua sponte instructed jury that BB guns are excluded from "firearm" definition	Court: No error. Codefendant became unavailable, but Wright failed to seek admission after invocation; no sua sponte instruction required and no plain error.

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes right to self-representation)
People v. Coleman, 129 Ill. 2d 321 (1989) (substantial compliance with Rule 401 may suffice)
People v. Johnson, 119 Ill. 2d 119 (Rule 401 substantial-compliance analysis)
People v. Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d 204 (1996) (total-record review supports waiver despite omissions)
People v. Campbell, 224 Ill. 2d 80 (2006) (no Rule 401 compliance when court made no admonishment)
People v. Washington, 2012 IL 107993 (Illinois Supreme Court) (victim’s unambiguous view can support inference of a real gun)
People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (insufficient evidence where weapon was shown to be a small BB gun)
People v. Oliver, 368 Ill. App. 3d 690 (2006) (dismissal of indictment warranted where officer’s false grand-jury testimony caused prejudice)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)