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. Turman

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

October 23, 2019

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARCUS E. TURMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 17CF85 Honorable Roger B. Webber, Judge Presiding.

          James E. Chadd, John M. McCarthy, and Joshua Scanlon, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

          Julia Rietz, State's Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James C. Majors, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

          JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Steigmann and Harris concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          KNECHT JUSTICE.

         ¶ 1 Defendant, Marcus E. Turman, appeals from his conviction for violating section 3 of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Act) (730 ILCS 150/3 (West 2016)). On appeal, defendant argues we should reverse his conviction because the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. We disagree and affirm.

         ¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 A. Information

         ¶ 4 In January 2017, the State charged defendant by information with violating the Act based on his failure to register his current address with the Urbana Police Department within three days of establishing his residence or temporary domicile in Urbana. Id.

         ¶ 5 B. Motion to Suppress

         ¶ 6 In June 2017, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming he was unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion. Defendant alleged, on January 17, 2017, he was seized when Champaign County sheriffs deputies, in a show of authority, approached, surrounded, and ordered him to dismount from his bicycle. Defendant further alleged that seizure occurred without the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe he committed or was about to commit a crime. Defendant requested the trial court suppress all evidence obtained following his encounter with the deputies.

         ¶ 7 C. Suppression Hearing

         ¶ 8 In July 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant presented testimony from a Champaign County sheriffs deputy who was involved in the January 17, 2017, encounter, Deputy Nicky Bolt. Defendant also introduced into evidence an aerial map. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.

         ¶ 9 On January 17, 2017, at 3:55 p.m., Champaign County sheriff deputies, including Deputy Bolt, were dispatched to 813 MacArthur Drive in Urbana for a reported armed robbery. Deputy Bolt believed the armed robbery, a purse-snatching, occurred in the front yard of the residence located at 813 MacArthur Drive. Deputy Bolt identified the location of the armed robbery on the aerial map.

         ¶ 10 Dispatch provided a description of the armed robbery suspect. The suspect was described as a black male, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and of medium build, wearing blue jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt. Deputy Bolt testified the "victim" also reported the suspect left "on foot." Deputy Bolt, along with other deputies and a canine unit, responded to the neighborhood where the armed robbery occurred to search for the suspect.

         ¶ 11 Deputy Bolt testified she arrived "at the scene" at approximately 4:26 p.m. Deputy Bolt, who was inside a squad car, observed a male, later identified as defendant, on a bicycle on the corner of Pfeffer Road and California Avenue. Defendant's location was approximately "a block, block and a half away from the location where the armed robbery had occurred. Deputy Bolt identified where defendant was located on the aerial map. Defendant was wearing blue jeans, a black jacket, a black hooded sweatshirt, and a blue hat. Deputy Bolt made an in-court identification of defendant as the person she observed on the bicycle.

         ¶ 12 Deputy Bolt testified she decided to approach defendant because he was (1) "approximately the same size" as the suspect, (2) "wearing blue jeans, a black jacket[, ] and a black hooded sweatshirt," and (3) "riding his bike down Pfeffer [Road]." Deputy Bolt noted that defendant later reported to be 5 feet 7 inches tall and 125 pounds, which she believed to be accurate based on her encounter with him.

         ¶ 13 On direct examination, Deputy Bolt testified as follows concerning her approach and initial interaction with defendant:

"Q. Okay. Now, you, at that point, when you saw him, you told him to get off the bicycle?
A. Yeah. I asked him if he would speak with us.
Q. Okay. He wasn't free to leave at that time?
A. I didn't tell him he wasn't free to leave. I mean-
Q. He had-
A.-that was never ...

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.