People v. Toy

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2011 » People v. Toy

People v. Toy

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-07-2969 Rel

Case Date: 01/21/2011

Preview:Sixth Division January 21, 2011

No. 1-07-2969 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAMEN TOY, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County

04 CR 17327

Honorable James Michael Obbish, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Garcia and Justice R.E. Gordon concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION Following a May 2007 jury trial, defendant Damen Toy, who appeared pro se at trial, was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm and two counts of attempted armed robbery. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a 45-year term for one count of aggravated criminal sexual assault and a consecutive term of 30 years for the second count of aggravated criminal sexual assault, as well as two concurrent terms of 10 years for the two counts of attempted armed robbery, for an aggregate term of 75 years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) his waiver of counsel was not valid because the trial court did not give him oral admonishments about the potential range of sentences; (2) his conviction for attempted armed robbery should be reduced to simple robbery because the State failed to prove that he was armed with a "dangerous weapon"; (3) the State failed to prove that defendant possessed a "firearm" within the meaning of the aggravated criminal sexual assault statute (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(8) (West 2004)); and (4) defendant was denied the right to a fair

1-07-2969 sentencing hearing and the right to counsel because the trial court refused to appoint the public defender at the sentencing stage of the proceedings. In July 2004, defendant was charged with the aggravated criminal sexual assault of B.H. and the attempted armed robbery of B.H. and Paul Watkins-Lash. In August 2004, the public defender was appointed to represent defendant in this case and in other separate pending cases. On October 25, 2005, defendant's attorney informed the trial court that defendant wished to represent himself. The trial court noted that defendant had "four cases before the Court, three of which are Class X felonies, two of them are aggravated criminal sexual assault allegations with numerous counts, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, burglary, another separate and distinct armed robbery with an aggravated unlawful restraint." The court then asked defendant if he understood all the charges pending before the court. The trial court then warned defendant about his decision to represent himself as follows. "You have a constitutional right to represent yourself. Before I admonish you as I'm required to do under Illinois Supreme Court rules, I also find it incumbent upon myself to explain to you that if you do decide to represent yourself, you will be required to follow all the rules and procedures that every lawyer who steps into this courtroom must follow. I will not have the opportunity to teach you the law nor explain to you the procedures which also encompass the rules of evidence. And having said that, it's clear to me that you will be at a distinct disadvantage; so I really wonder out loud why in the world you would want to represent yourself against trained 2

1-07-2969 prosecutors who are probably salivating for the opportunity to try the case and get someone who does not know the rules of evidence or courtroom proceeding. They will have a distinct advantage. The law does provide and our Constitution does provide you the opportunity to represent yourself. That alone doesn't mean that that's an intelligent decision." Defendant stated that he was not getting the counsel that he "deserve[d]." Defendant indicated that he had been in jail for 17 months and his attorney did not have a defense for him while the State was "putting a lot of effort in the case." Defendant's attorney then noted that defendant had new cases that have arisen. In response, defendant said, "I don't understand why Mr. Thomas is speaking before you. He no longer represents me." The court informed defendant that it would have its clerk make copies of all the charges and the minimum and maximum possible sentences and give defendant the opportunity to read them. The court again advised defendant about the risk of representing himself at trial. At the next status hearing on October 31, 2005, the trial court asked defendant if he still wished to represent himself and defendant responded that he did. The trial court informed defendant that it was going to give him a copy of four separate indictments and "a typewritten copy of all the possible sentences, each count on each separate indictment, and how they may or may not be consecutive, not only to each other within each separate indictment, but how the sentences could be consecutive to each other, that the separate indictment

Download People v. Toy.pdf