2023 IL App (4th) 220982-U
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Defendant Jatterius Yankaway was charged with attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) for shooting his cousin, Robert Hunter, multiple times; Hunter suffered severe, permanent injuries.
- Crime-scene evidence: five spent .40-caliber casings recovered; a .40-caliber handgun recovered from defendant’s vehicle with DNA linking defendant to the grip and trigger; ballistics connected two recovered rounds to that gun.
- Defendant was incarcerated on a separate UPWF conviction when these charges proceeded; the case experienced multiple continuances during the COVID-19 emergency period.
- Defense counsel filed a speedy-trial demand on June 30, 2022 under section 103-5 (Criminal Code) rather than the Intrastate Detainers Statute; defendant moved to dismiss for speedy-trial violation which the court denied.
- A jury convicted Yankaway of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and UPWF, and found a 15-year firearm enhancement; the court sentenced him to 44 years (attempt) + 26 years (battery) consecutively, and did not enter a sentence on the UPWF count.
- On appeal Yankaway argued ineffective assistance (speedy-trial filing error), one-act/one-crime violation (vacate aggravated battery), sentencing-range misapprehension, and judicial bias at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Yankaway’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for filing speedy-trial demand under wrong statute | Counsel’s error did not prejudice defendant because the record does not show the State would not have tried him within 160 days even if a proper intrastate demand had been filed | Counsel was deficient for filing under §103-5 instead of the Intrastate Detainers Statute and for not objecting to continuances; this caused a statutory speedy-trial violation | Counsel’s performance was deficient, but no Strickland prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| 2. One-act, one-crime: convictions for both attempted murder and aggravated battery | Multiple shots could support multiple convictions if State apportioned acts; but here State treated the shooting as a single act | Aggravated battery conviction must be vacated because State did not apportion offenses among distinct gunshots; convictions rest on the same physical act | Vacated aggravated battery conviction and sentence under one-act, one-crime (attempted murder is the greater offense) |
| 3. Sentencing-range misapprehension (minimum for attempt) | Any mistaken statement about the minimum did not arguably influence the sentence; judge did not anchor sentence to the mistaken minimum | Judge misstated the minimum (referred to a 26-year minimum) and that misapprehension arguably influenced the 44-year sentence | No plain error: judge’s mistaken remark did not arguably influence sentencing (Eddington standard) |
| 4. Judicial bias at sentencing | Court’s critical comments responded to defendant’s lack of remorse and seriousness of the crime—proper sentencing considerations | Court’s remarks (e.g., “you murdered your cousin,” “reason prisons are built”) showed animosity and denied a fair sentencing hearing | No judicial bias: remarks viewed in context were reaction to offense seriousness and defendant’s demeanor, not prohibited animosity |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Staten, 159 Ill.2d 419 (1994) (Intrastate Detainers Statute governs speedy-trial demands by incarcerated defendants)
- People v. Sandoval, 236 Ill.2d 57 (2010) (speedy-trial demand must be an unambiguous demand; mere objection insufficient)
- People v. Jackson, 235 Ill. App.3d 732 (1992) (counsel filed under wrong statute; deficient performance found but prejudice speculative)
- People v. Willis, 235 Ill. App.3d 1060 (1992) (same counsel-error analysis as Jackson)
- People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335 (2001) (State must apportion multiple wounds/shots to support multiple convictions; failure to do so violates one-act, one-crime)
- People v. Beltran, 327 Ill. App.3d 685 (2002) (applies Crespo to multi-shooter/multi-shot context; vacated overlapping convictions where State failed to apportion)
- People v. Coats, 104 N.E.3d 1102 (Ill. 2018) (one-act, one-crime violations are second-prong plain error affecting judicial integrity)
- People v. King, 66 Ill.2d 551 (1977) (definition of a single physical act for one-act, one-crime analysis)
- People v. Eddington, 77 Ill.2d 41 (1979) (a judge’s mistaken view of the minimum sentence requires resentencing only if it arguably influenced the decision)
- People v. Moore, 69 Ill.2d 520 (1978) (contrast case where judge imposed sentence believing it was the minimum)
- People v. Hausman, 287 Ill. App.3d 1069 (1997) (misstated minimum that the judge said he would impose as the minimum required resentencing)