Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 13 CR 8824
Honorable Nicholas Ford, Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Howse and Burke concurred in the judgment
1 Defendant Anthony Scott, along with his codefendant Keith
Lucious, were charged with armed robbery, aggravated robbery,
and aggravated unlawful restraint for accosting a woman in an
alley and taking two backpacks from her. Defendant was 16
years old at the time of the offense, and codefendant was 15
years old. Defendant and codefendant were tried at a joint
bench trial and convicted of aggravated robbery and unlawful
2 In this appeal, defendant alleges that his trial attorney
was ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash his
arrest and suppress evidence obtained from him, where the
description relayed to the police officers was too vague to
support the officer's detention of defendant and
codefendant in the area. For the reasons stated below, we
decline to reach this question because the record is
insufficient to fully assess whether the police had a
reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to support the
officers' investigatory stop. We thus affirm
defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery.
3 We agree with defendant's claim that his
unlawful-restraint conviction must be vacated pursuant to the
one-act, one-crime doctrine. We also agree that an amendment
to the automatic transfer provision of the Juvenile Court Act
of 1987, which excluded the offense of armed robbery from the
list of offenses requiring automatic transfer of a juvenile
to adult court, applied retroactively to his case.
Accordingly, we vacate defendant's sentence for
aggravated robbery and remand for resentencing to the
juvenile court, with directions that the State be permitted
the opportunity to seek a discretionary transfer to adult
4 I. BACKGROUND
5 The State charged defendant with armed robbery predicated
on his and codefendant's being armed with a firearm
during the robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated
unlawful restraint. The aggravated robbery charge alleged
that, on April 5, 2013, defendant and codefendant committed a
robbery "while indicating verbally, or by their actions
*** that they were presently armed with a firearm or other
6 At the time of defendant's trial, armed robbery
committed with a firearm by an offender who was at least 15
years old was an offense requiring defendant's case to be
transferred to adult court without a hearing. 705 ILCS
405/5-130(1)(a) (West 2012). Both defendant and codefendant
elected to have bench trials.
7 Naritza Castellanos testified that, at 10:30 a.m. on April
5, 2013, she was distributing fliers in an alley near 4251
West Haddon Avenue in Chicago. Castellanos was carrying two
backpacks with her. The backpacks contained fliers, keys, a
cell phone, and $20 in cash.
8 She testified that two young men, whom she identified as
defendant and codefendant, approached her and asked her for
money. She said she did not have any, and codefendant hit her
in her face and stomach. Defendant and codefendant threw
Castellanos to the ground, took her backpacks, and fled.
Castellanos also testified that codefendant pressed a gun to
her right temple while she was on the ground.
9 Castellanos testified that defendant had red hair and that
codefendant wore "like braids or bows" in his hair.
Castellanos said that codefendant wore a black and brown
checkered jacket, and defendant wore a black jacket.
10 Shortly after defendant and codefendant fled, a passerby
loaned his cell phone to Castellanos so that she could call
the police. She testified that, a few minutes after she
called the police, she saw defendant again in the same area,
but he had changed into a white jacket with red lettering on
the back. Some time later, the police brought defendant and
codefendant to Castellanos in a squad car, and Castellanos
identified them as the boys who had robbed her.
11 Officer Michna testified that he and his partner responded
to a call of a robbery near Thomas Street and Kildare Avenue.
The prosecutor asked Michna if he was given "a
description of any sort regarding the robbery, " and
Michna replied, "Just it was armed robbery and two male
black teens." The court interjected, "I think she
means the description of the individuals involved, " and
Michna said, "Two male black teens."
12 Michna saw two black teenagers about two blocks from the
scene of the incident, whom he identified as defendant and
codefendant, and approached them in his car. Michna said that
one of them "had braids and the other one had
orangish-red hair." Michna asked where they were coming
from, and defendant and codefendant "gave conflicting
stories." Michna testified that he and his partner put
defendant and codefendant into their squad car and drove them
back to Castellanos's location to conduct a showup.
Castellanos identified defendant and codefendant as the
13 After Castellanos identified defendant and codefendant,
they were placed under arrest and searched. The police
recovered a set of keys from defendant, which Castellanos
identified as her keys. Defendant and codefendant did not
have a cell phone or any money on them. Michna testified that
no firearm was recovered in connection with the robbery.
14 On cross-examination, defendant's counsel asked Michna
if he stopped defendant and codefendant simply because of
their proximity to the site of the robbery, and Micha
replied, "No, based on the red hair. They were male
teens, black teens." He also testified that he saw them
less than two blocks from the reported site of the robbery.
15 Detective Suzanne Chevalier testified that she, an
assistant State's Attorney (ASA), and a youth officer
questioned defendant about the robbery. Defendant said that
he and codefendant skipped school that day to go shoe
shopping. They saw Castellanos in an alley and decided to
take her backpacks.
16 Chevalier testified that defendant admitted that he and
codefendant approached Castellanos, threw her to the ground,
and took her backpacks. Defendant added that "he told
the victim, don't make [codefendant] shoot you."
Defendant also said that he did not know why he said,
"don't make him shoot you, " because
codefendant "only had a cell phone with him."
Defendant said that he found keys in one of the backpacks,
and that, after the robbery, he and codefendant walked around
the neighborhood looking for Castellanos's car "so
that they could take it."
17 After Detective Chevalier testified, the State rested.
Defendant moved for a directed finding on the armed robbery
count, which the court granted.
18 Neither defendant nor codefendant elected to testify or
present any evidence.
19 The trial court found defendant guilty of aggravated
robbery and unlawful restraint. Defense counsel filed a
motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
20 Because defendant had been acquitted of the offense that
led to his being tried in adult court (i.e., armed
robbery with a firearm), the State moved to have defendant
sentenced as an adult, noting that he was 16 years old and
was on juvenile probation. See 705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(c)(ii)
(West 2012) (permitting State to move for adult sentencing
when juvenile charged with automatic-transfer offense is
acquitted of automatic-transfer offense and convicted of
another, non-automatic-transfer offense). Defense counsel
argued that defendant was a "follower, " that it
was not his idea to rob Castellanos, and that defendant had
been in special education classes in school. The court
granted the State's motion, citing defendant's
criminal history and the fact that this offense involved
21 The court sentenced defendant to five years'
incarceration for aggravated robbery. Defendant's
mittimus also reflects a three-year sentence for
"aggravated unlawful restraint." Defendant appeals.
22 II. ANALYSIS
23 A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/Motion to Suppress
24 Defendant first contends that his attorney was ineffective
for failing to file a motion to quash his arrest and suppress
Castellanos's identification of him at the scene of the
robbery, the keys found on defendant's person, and
defendant's subsequent statement to the police and ASA.
Defendant claims that the record shows that the police
stopped him without any reasonable suspicion that he had
committed a crime, leading to the illegal recovery of that
evidence. The State argues that the police had ...