People v. Wright
2017 IL 119561
| Ill. | 2018Background
- Eugene Wright was charged with armed robbery with a firearm for a December 26, 2010 Bakers Square robbery; a codefendant (Morgan) was separately charged. Wright sought to proceed pro se and was admonished under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 401(a).
- The trial court twice admonished Wright about the nature of the charges, his right to counsel, and sentencing exposure, but misstated the maximum possible sentence for armed robbery as 60 years (true maximum 75 years because of a 15-year firearm enhancement and prior conviction).
- Trial evidence included eyewitness identifications (manager Perez and others), surveillance video, police show-ups, rolls of coins found in Wright’s van, and testimony that codefendant displayed what witnesses perceived as a semiautomatic firearm; a BB gun was later found in the area but not linked by fingerprints.
- Wright proceeded pro se, was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, and sentenced to 50 years (State had sought up to 60; maximum eligibility was 75).
- On appeal the appellate court reversed and remanded solely on the basis that the Rule 401(a) admonishment was deficient because of the incorrect maximum sentence; it affirmed on other issues. The State sought leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court substantially complied with Rule 401(a) despite misstating the maximum sentence (60 v. 75 years) | Misstatement was immaterial; overall admonishments and record show Wright knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel | Incorrect maximum sentence rendered waiver unknowing and involuntary, requiring new trial | Court held substantial compliance; waiver was knowing, voluntary, intelligent; appellate reversal on this ground reversed (admonishment deficiency was not prejudicial) |
| Whether grand-jury indictment should be dismissed for allegedly deceptive grand-jury testimony by Detective Lee (failure to disclose BB gun evidence) | Grand-jury testimony was not deceptive: no gun had been recovered then that was tied to the crime; later discovery of a BB gun did not show the State misled the grand jury | Detective Lee’s testimony that no weapon was recovered was misleading given the subsequent BB gun discovery and thus may have procured the indictment | Court held no basis to dismiss; detective’s grand-jury testimony was not shown to be false or intentionally deceptive such that it deprived Wright of meaningful indictment |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove armed robbery "with a firearm" (not a BB gun) | Eyewitness testimony (manager felt a barrel, saw what looked like a black semiautomatic, was “100% sure”) allowed rational inference of a real firearm | Victims only saw handles briefly and a BB gun was found nearby; evidence insufficient to prove a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held evidence was sufficient; jurors could reasonably infer codefendant possessed a real firearm and convict of armed robbery |
| Exclusion of codefendant’s out-of-court statement that he committed robbery with a BB gun (Rule 804(b)(3)) and failure to sua sponte instruct on "firearm" definition | State: admissibility not properly presented; trial court did not err where Wright did not pursue admission after Morgan invoked Fifth; no sua sponte duty to give definition absent a request | Wright: statement was against penal interest and corroborated; judge should have admitted it or instructed jury sua sponte about ‘‘firearm’’ exclusion for BB guns | Court held no error: Morgan’s invocation made him unavailable but Wright failed to seek admission after that; no duty to sua sponte give firearm-definition instruction and no plain error occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and requirement that waiver be knowing and voluntary)
- People v. Coleman, 129 Ill. 2d 321 (1989) (Rule 401 substantial compliance can suffice even with inaccuracies in admonishments)
- People v. Johnson, 119 Ill. 2d 119 (1987) (same; waiver valid despite misstatement of sentence when record shows knowing waiver)
- People v. Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d 204 (1996) (evaluating substantial compliance with Rule 401 in light of overall record)
- People v. Campbell, 224 Ill. 2d 80 (2006) (no compliance with Rule 401 where court made no attempt to admonish defendant)
- People v. Washington, 2012 IL 107993 (2012) (victim’s clear, prolonged observation of a gun supports inference of a real firearm)
- People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (2008) (insufficient evidence that a small BB gun constituted a dangerous weapon when it was not shown to be a real firearm)
- People v. Oliver, 368 Ill. App. 3d 690 (2006) (grand-jury dismissal where officer gave false testimony he personally observed narcotics transactions)