People v. Leach

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2008 » People v. Leach

People v. Leach

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-07-0663 Rel

Case Date: 09/30/2008

Preview:NO. 4-07-0663 Filed 9/30/08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. LEACH, Defendant-Appellant. ) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Sangamon County ) No. 04CF881 ) ) Honorable ) Leslie J. Graves, ) Judge Presiding. ______________________________________________________________ JUSTICE TURNER delivered the opinion of the court: In March 2007, a jury convicted defendant, Michael J. Leach, of eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated robbery. In May 2007, the trial court

sentenced him to consecutive terms of 16 years in prison on 4 aggravated-criminal-sexual-assault counts (6 years plus a 10-year sentence enhancement on each count). The court also sentenced

him to a consecutive six-year term for aggravated robbery. On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court's imposition of the 10-year sentence enhancement deprived him of due process and (2) he was denied the proper amount of credit for time served in custody prior to sentencing. fied and remand with directions. I. BACKGROUND In September 2004, the State charged defendant by information with nine counts of aggravated criminal sexual We affirm as modi-

assault (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(1), (a)(4) (West 2004)) and one count of aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-5(a) (West 2004)) involving the victim, D.S. Defendant pleaded not guilty. On

In March 2007, defendant's jury trial commenced. August 12, 2004, at approximately 8:30 a.m., D.S. heard the doorbell ring.

D.S. was working from home that day and was still D.S. was expecting a delivery, so she answered

in her nightgown.

the door to defendant, an easily identifiable man with two large and elaborate tattoos on his forearms. A couple of weeks ear-

lier, D.S. had purchased a garden pond at a yard sale from Sue Bonansinga, who lived across the alley. Defendant, Bonansinga's Defendant re-

son, had helped carry the pond to D.S.'s yard.

turned to D.S.'s house on August 12, 2004, and told her he had extra filters for the garden pond. defendant left. Fifteen minutes later, defendant unexpectedly returned to D.S.'s doorstep. her pond. Defendant told D.S. he had more supplies for D.S. took the filters, and

D.S. thought the "supplies" looked like equipment from

a small aquarium but nevertheless took the items into the house because she did not want to make defendant feel foolish or angry. Defendant, who was still standing outside the house, then asked D.S. if he could borrow her phone, claiming he had locked himself out of his house. door. D.S. handed defendant her phone through the

Defendant pretended to make a phone call and then, upon - 2 -

returning the phone to D.S., told her that he had really returned to the house to rape her and forced himself through the door. Once in the house, a violent chase ensued, where D.S. repeatedly screamed for help and threw items at the window hoping to break the glass. D.S. hoped that her neighbor, Graham

Murdock, who often worked outside doing yard work, would hear her. When defendant finally caught D.S., he told her to shut up

because he had a knife and a .22-caliber gun and he would stab or shoot her if she did not cooperate. D.S. was convinced that

defendant had a weapon and struggled frantically to get away, but defendant put his hands on her neck and over her nose and mouth so that D.S. could no longer scream or breath. Defendant told D.S. then

her if she did not stop screaming, he would kill her.

nodded, indicating she would cooperate if he would let her breathe. D.S. then tried a different tack to escape the situation, attempting to manipulate defendant. D.S. told defendant

that she had a high-risk pregnancy due to her age and various medical conditions and that, if she had sex, she would lose the baby. D.S. tried to sound more believable by employing various Alternatively, D.S. begged defendant not to kill

medical terms. her baby.

Defendant then violently forced oral sex on D.S.

D.S.

warned defendant that her father was planning to visit that day - 3 -

and defendant should leave before he got caught.

Defendant Defen-

replied that he would kill D.S.'s father if he arrived.

dant forced D.S., through several different struggles to both give and receive oral sex. D.S. managed to escape into the

bathroom, where she attempted to barricade the door with a movable linen cabinet. Defendant broke down the door, and D.S.

sustained cuts from the wood of the door splintering open on her. Defendant dragged D.S. back to the bedroom and tore off her nightgown. Defendant again forced oral sex on D.S. and ejacu-

lated into her hair. Defendant then ordered D.S. to give him all her money. D.S. gave defendant $35 in cash and offered him her credit card, which he angrily declined. Defendant then started searching

D.S.'s home for valuables and drinking alcohol that he found in the home. D.S. pretended to look for her dog, which defendant

had earlier thrown against the wall during one of the struggles, and managed to escape out of the house. house screaming rape. D.S.'s neighbor, Murdock, heard D.S. and came outside. When D.S. saw Murdock, she ran toward him, but she was so hysterical that she did not notice the retaining wall that separated their properties and tripped over it, breaking her foot in several places. D.S. was terrified and disoriented. Murdock was D.S. ran out of the

able to calm her and call 9-1-1 on her behalf. - 4 -

While Murdock was

calling 9-1-1, he and D.S. saw defendant exit D.S.'s house barefoot, go into her garage, and drive away in her vehicle. The police arrived within minutes. D.S. was taken to a

hospital, treated for her injuries, and given a sexual-assault examination. The semen in D.S.'s hair matched defendant's Additionally, an oral swab taken

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).

from D.S. contained some of defendant's DNA. The police ultimately apprehended defendant later that day when he crashed D.S.'s vehicle into a Chicago-area home. In

his initial statement to police, defendant claimed he had taken sleeping pills before the incident and could barely remember what he had done. He "remember[ed] something bad happening" and was Detective Scott

"sorry for whatever [he] did to the girl."

Kincaid interviewed D.S. twice on the day of the incident. Kincaid testified D.S. told him during both interviews that defendant had claimed to have a knife and a gun, though he never showed D.S. either of the weapons. Defendant exercised his constitutional right not to testify. See U.S. Const., amend. V. Following closing argu-

ments, the jury found defendant guilty of eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated robbery. The jury found defendant not guilty of one count of

aggravated criminal sexual assault. In April 2007, defendant filed a posttrial motion, - 5 -

which the trial court denied.

At the May 2007 sentencing hear-

ing, the court vacated four of the aggravated-criminal-sexualassault counts and sentenced defendant as stated. In June 2007,

defendant filed a motion to reduce sentence, which the court denied. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS A. Constitutionality of Sentence Defendant argues the trial court's imposition of a 10year sentence enhancement for threatening the use of a dangerous weapon deprived him of his right to due process where (1) that sentence was disproportionate to the penalty for the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault while threatening the life of the victim and (2) the enhancement was not reasonably related to the goal of deterring the use of dangerous weapons. 1. Standard of Review "The constitutionality of a statute is purely a matter of law, and accordingly we review the circuit court's conclusion de novo. [Citation.] All statutes carry a strong [CitaWe disagree.

presumption of constitutionality. tion.]

To overcome this presumption, the

party challenging the statute must clearly establish that it violates the constitution. [Citation.] We generally defer to the - 6 -

legislature in the sentencing arena because the legislature is institutionally better equipped to gauge the seriousness of various offenses and to fashion sentences accordingly. [Citation.] The legislature's dis-

cretion in setting criminal penalties is broad, and courts generally decline to overrule legislative determinations in this area unless the challenged penalty is clearly in excess of the general constitutional limitations on this authority." People v. Sharpe,

216 Ill. 2d 481, 486-87, 839 N.E.2d 492, 49798 (2005). 2. The Proportionate-Penalties Clause Under the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution, "[a]ll penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship." Const. 1970, art. I,

Download People v. Leach.pdf