Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Hibbler

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

June 7, 2019

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TERRELL LASEAN HIBBLER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County Nos. 15CF906, 15CF1184 Honorable John Casey Costigan, Judge Presiding.

          JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Holder White and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          STEIGMANN JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 In September 2015, defendant, Terrell Lasean Hibbler, pleaded guilty to threatening a public official (720 ILCS 5/12-9(a) (West 2014)) in exchange for a sentence of 30 months' probation. While on probation, in October 2015, defendant was indicted for armed robbery and resisting a peace officer. Id. §§ 18-2(a)(2), 31-1(a-7). The State also filed a petition to revoke his probation.

         ¶ 2 In August 2016, a jury convicted defendant of armed robbery and resisting a peace officer, and the trial court granted the State's petition to revoke probation. In September 2016, the court sentenced defendant to 30 years in prison for armed robbery, 3 years for resisting a peace officer, and 5 years for threatening a public official and ordered all sentences to run concurrently.

         ¶ 3 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred at the sentencing hearing by considering defendant's conduct in jail based upon information contained within the presentence investigation report (PSI), (2) the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that constituted a double enhancement, (3) the trial court erred by ordering restitution without stating whether it was to be paid in a lump sum or by installments, (4) trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the restitution amount in the PSI, and (5) the trial court erred when sentencing defendant after revoking his probation because the sentence was based on his subsequent conduct instead of the original offense for which he had been placed on probation. We agree only with defendant's third argument and remand regarding restitution. We reject all of defendant's other arguments and otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment.

         ¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 5 A. The Charges

         ¶ 6 In August 2015, defendant was indicted on one count of threatening a public official. Id. § 12-9(a). In September 2015, as part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to threatening a public official in exchange for a sentence of 30 months' probation.

         ¶ 7 In October 2015, defendant was indicted for armed robbery and resisting a peace officer. Id. §§ 18-2(a)(2), 31-1(a-7). Later that month, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging defendant violated the terms of his probation by committing the offenses set forth in the October 2015 indictment.

         ¶ 8 B. The Trials

         ¶ 9 In August 2016, the trial court conducted a jury trial on the armed robbery and resisting charges. The court simultaneously conducted a bench trial on the petition to revoke.

         ¶ 10 Lashkmibhargava Ravi testified he was working at the Blooming Food Mart (Food Mart), a gas station convenience store located in Bloomington, Illinois, on the night of October 3, 2015. Ravi stated that defendant entered the store, pointed a gun at him, and demanded the money in the cash register. Ravi instructed another employee to give defendant the money, which he estimated to be about $3600. Defendant took the money and ran out of the store. Ravi called the police to report the robbery and later identified defendant as the robber after police took him to a location not far from the store where defendant had been arrested.

         ¶ 11 The State played a surveillance video that depicted the events Ravi described for the jury. The video also showed defendant pointing the gun at Ravi and the other employee and placing the money in his front left pocket.

         ¶ 12 Bloomington police officer Joseph Rizzi testified he was dispatched to a home, which happened to be near the Food Mart, in response to a reported fight in the residence. Rizzi stated that, as he approached the home, he saw a black male running through the backyard and stopped him to inquire about the fight. Rizzi identified the man as defendant in open court.

         ¶ 13 Rizzi testified that defendant claimed he saw the fight and was running through the backyard to avoid it. As Rizzi spoke with him, defendant started to back away. Rizzi then noticed cash bulging out of defendant's left jeans pocket, which defendant was trying to stuff into his pocket. Rizzi also noticed defendant's hand was moving toward his waistband generally. Rizzi then heard over his radio about an armed robbery at the nearby Food Mart. (Rizzi explained that Bloomington police officers wear earpieces to listen to information over their radios so that the public cannot hear.) Rizzi stated that defendant was wearing clothing that was identical with the description of the robbery suspect.

         ¶ 14 Rizzi then attempted to detain defendant, but defendant started to run away. Rizzi grabbed defendant's shirt, and a struggle ensued. After the two tumbled down a hill in the yard, Rizzi attempted to secure defendant's hands, and defendant fought to get away. Another officer on the scene came to Rizzi's aid. The two eventually arrested defendant.

         ¶ 15 Rizzi testified that he had a cut on his nose, elbow, and both knees as a result of the struggle. Rizzi noted that his bulletproof vest, which was secured with Velcro on either side of his torso, came loose during the fight and was twisted in such a way that it no longer offered him any meaningful protection. (Rizzi also explained that, in part because of incidents such as this one, the Bloomington Police Department now used vests secured by zippers.) Because Rizzi believed defendant was the armed robber, he described himself as "[e]xtremely[ ] [t]errified" during the struggle.

         ¶ 16 The State presented testimony from multiple other officers who arrived at the scene. Collectively, they recovered $2685 in cash from defendant's jeans pocket and a handgun from the area where the struggle occurred.

         ¶ 17 Detective Tim Power, who interviewed defendant at the Bloomington police station, testified that defendant said his fingerprints would be on the gun because someone paid him $200 to hold it. The gun had live ammunition in it, but the gun's chamber did not contain a bullet when the police examined it.

         ¶ 18 The jury found defendant guilty of armed robbery and resisting a peace officer. The trial court found the State had proved its petition to revoke defendant's probation by a preponderance of the evidence.

         ¶ 19 C. The Sentencing Hearing

         ¶ 20 In September 2016, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The PSI was filed seven days prior to the hearing. The PSI contained a list of rule violations defendant committed while in the county jail and a brief description of the factual circumstances of those violations. The PSI also stated that "the firm *** representing the [Food Mart] Insurer [was] requesting restitution in the amount of $4, 359.92," and the City of Bloomington was requesting $280.37 in restitution for Rizzi's medical treatment.

         ¶ 211. Proceedings Relating to the PSI

         ¶ 22 At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated it had reviewed the PSI and then asked the State if it had received the PSI as well. The State indicated it had, and the court asked if the State had any changes or amendments. The State responded that it did not.

         ¶ 23 The trial court then asked the same questions of defense counsel, who indicated he had received the report and asked the court to add one day to the number of days defendant would receive for presentence credit. The State agreed, and the court changed the PSI to include an extra day of presentence credit.

         ¶ 24 The trial court next moved on to defendant's motion for a new trial. After hearing argument from counsel, the court denied defendant's motion.

         ¶ 25 The trial court then asked the State if it had anything further before the court proceeded to sentencing. The State asked the court to grant its motion to substitute evidence, replacing the physical cash recovered from defendant with scanned copies of the bills so that the cash could be returned to the victim. The State also asked the court to amend the PSI to reduce the amount of restitution by $2685. The court granted the motion to substitute and also amended the PSI.

         ¶ 26 Before proceeding to sentencing, the following exchange occurred:

"THE COURT: Anything further before we get to the sentencing hearing, Mr. Rigdon?
MR. RIGDON [(ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY)]: No, [Y]our Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Tusek?
MR. TUSEK [(DEFENSE COUNSEL)]: No, [Y]our Honor. THE COURT: All right. The Court has received and reviewed the PSI. The one amendment that Mr. Tusek has requested has been made. Any objection to the admission of the PSI, Mr. Rigdon? MR. RIGDON: No, [Y]our Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Chambers?
MR. CHAMBERS [(MCLEAN COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY)]: No, [Y]our Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Rigdon is going to handle the sentencing? MR. CHAMBERS: Both of us.
THE COURT: Both of you. Okay. Mr. Tusek, any objection to the- MR. TUSEK: No. No objection.
THE COURT: The PSI will be shown as admitted. Any evidence in aggravation for the State, Mr. Chambers?"

         ¶ 27 2. Evidence in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.