1 

2021 IL App (5th) 180289-U 

NO. 5-18-0289 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the

 ) Circuit Court of

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Gallatin County. 

 ) 

v. ) No. 14-CF-36 

 ) 

LONNIE L. MANN JR., ) Honorable 

 ) Thomas J. Foster, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Barberis and Wharton concurred in the judgment.

 

 ORDER

Held: The State’s improper impeachment of defendant via prior conviction was not 

reversible error, the defendant voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial, and 

there was no violation of the speedy-trial or compulsory-joinder statutes. Any 

 contrary argument lacks merit. Defendant’s appellate counsel is granted leave to 

 withdraw, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

¶ 1 Defendant, Lonnie L. Mann Jr., was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced to 

prison. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction. His appointed attorney in this appeal, 

the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD), concluded this appeal lacked merit, and on 

that basis filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, along with a brief in support thereof. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). OSAD provided defendant with a copy of its Anders motion 

and brief. This court gave defendant ample opportunity to file a pro se brief, memorandum, or 

other document explaining why OSAD should not be allowed to withdraw or why this appeal has 

NOTICE

This order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1).

NOTICE

Decision filed 10/05/21. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Petition for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.
2 

substantial merit, but defendant did not avail himself of that opportunity. This court examined 

OSAD’s Anders motion and brief, as well as the entire record on appeal, and determined this appeal 

indeed lacks merit. Accordingly, OSAD is granted leave to withdraw as counsel, and the judgment 

of conviction is affirmed. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In August 2014, defendant was charged by information with aggravated battery causing 

great bodily harm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1) (West 2014)), a Class 3 felony (id. § 12-3.05(h)). In 

April 2016, a second count was filed, charging defendant with aggravated battery causing great 

bodily harm when the aggravated battery was intentional and involved the infliction of torture, a 

Class 1 felony (id. § 12-3.05(h)). The second count arose from the same facts and circumstances 

as the original charge. In both counts, the complainant was Teresa Williford.

¶ 4 On February 27, 2017, the circuit court held a pretrial hearing with defendant, defense 

counsel, and the State. The court stated it had been informed that defendant wished to waive his 

right to a trial by jury and have a bench trial. The court asked defendant, “You want to waive your 

right to a jury trial in the case?” Defendant answered, “Yes, sir.” The court admonished defendant 

that only he could decide whether to be tried by a jury or by a judge, and defendant indicated his 

understanding. Again, the court asked defendant whether he wanted to waive his right to a jury 

trial, and defendant answered, “Yes, sir. I do.” Defendant acknowledged that he signed the jurywaiver form. The court asked defendant, “And you want to be tried by the Court at a bench trial 

and not a jury?” Defendant answered, “Yes, sir.” Defendant stated he did not want additional time 

to discuss the matter with counsel and that he had already made up his mind. The court said that if 

defendant wanted more time to speak with counsel, they would stop the hearing and allow for it, 

but defendant said that he “want[ed] to go forward with the bench trial” and did not need to speak 
3 

further with counsel. The court asked defendant whether anyone had forced him or threatened him 

into waiving his right to a jury trial, and defendant answered in the negative. The court asked 

whether anyone had promised defendant anything for his waiver of the right to a jury trial, and 

defendant again answered in the negative. Defendant indicated that his waiver was made freely, 

knowingly, and voluntarily, and that he had no questions about the jury waiver that he wanted to 

ask the court. Finding that defendant “freely, knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury 

trial in this case,” the court stated that defendant would be tried by the court. 

¶ 5 In February 2018, the cause proceeded to bench trial. The State’s evidence showed that on 

August 19, 2014, Teresa Williford was taken by ambulance to the emergency department at Ferrell 

Hospital. Both of Williford’s eyes were swollen and her chin was bruised. She had lacerations on 

her lip and above one eyebrow. Her right breast and left shoulder contained very noticeable bite 

marks. Her arms, legs, and back had multiple areas of bruising and swelling. All the bruises were 

deep brown, blue, or purple, with none of them appearing very old. Dried blood was on her nose, 

mouth, and lips. Amphetamines, methamphetamines, and opiates were found in Williford’s blood.

¶ 6 Dr. Hisham Youssef, a diagnostic radiologist, reviewed various images taken of Williford 

at Ferrell Hospital on the day she was brought to the emergency department. Imaging revealed

multiple facial bone fractures, including both eye sockets, two fractured ribs, and a right-side pelvis 

fracture. According to Dr. Youssef, fractures to facial bones would require “a significant amount 

of force” and would involve “excruciating” pain. The fractured ribs were consistent with punching 

or kicking. Fractures of the pelvis, which is a large and very stable bone, usually result from 

“significant trauma” such as motor vehicle accidents or falls from significant heights.

¶ 7 Teresa Williford, who had a prior conviction for possession of methamphetamine, testified 

that she and defendant were “friends.” During the evening of August 18, 2014, Williford drove 
4 

defendant from her house in Eldorado to his trailer on Coyle Lane in Equality, Illinois. Because 

defendant did not have a license, Williford sometimes gave him rides. During the drive, everything 

seemed normal. Once they arrived at defendant’s trailer, he asked her to go outside with him “for 

some reason.” The defendant then asked Williford to “run[ ] away” with him, a question that came 

“out of the blue” for Williford, who replied that she did not think that was a good idea. “He got 

really angry” and threatened to kill Williford’s daughters while she watched and then to kill her. 

Defendant hit her in the head and then the stomach. These first blows were delivered as the two 

stood in the driveway, near Williford’s car. She “yelled for help,” but defendant told her “not to 

do that or he would take [her] out.” He repeatedly hit Williford in the head, which caused her to 

fall to the ground. Defendant kicked her and told her to get up. She stood up. She asked him why 

he was hitting her and asked him to stop, but he “kept on hitting [her] over and over and over.”

¶ 8 Williford further testified that defendant told her to go inside the house, where they had a 

drink. Williford was in “a lot of pain.” After a while, defendant “took [her] back outside to the 

same spot and started over again, hitting [her] really hard in the head to the point where [she] 

would almost go unconscious.” As she lay on the ground, defendant kicked her in the ribs and 

head, “over and over until [she] got up.” As she was lying on the ground, defendant got on the 

ground next to her, placed her head in “the crease of his elbow,” and “squeezed” until she “could 

hear the bones in [her] skull crack.” Then he “put his elbow around [her] throat” and choked her 

until she was “almost unconscious.” Defendant said that he would take her “to the brink of death.” 

He warned her to tell other people that she had been involved in a four-wheeler wreck. At some 

point, defendant had Williford strip to her underpants to determine whether she had a cell phone. 

At another point, he forced her to use methamphetamine. At still another, he told her that she could 

leave, but then he “stabbed the tires” of her car so she could not leave.
5 

¶ 9 According to Williford, the beatings “went on for hours,” all through the night, and she 

occasionally lost consciousness. During the last burst of violence, defendant dragged her by her 

hair toward the trailer and they went inside. He “rammed both his fingers in [Williford’s] eye 

sockets,” and she could “feel his fingers behind [her] eyeball” as he tried to “pull [her] eyes out.” 

She ran to the bed. Defendant “kicked [her] in the pelvis and hit [her] a few more times.” Then, he 

left the room. Williford was “exhausted” as she lay on the bed with her feet on the floor, her eyes 

almost swollen shut. Defendant returned with a “stick” that he attempted to swing “with all his 

might” at Williford, but she, fearing that it could be the fatal blow, blocked it with her feet and 

hands. After a final struggle, and with defendant temporarily diverted, Williford was able to escape 

and ran to a neighbor’s house.

¶ 10 Shannon Bradley, the sheriff of Gallatin County, testified that on the morning of August 

19, 2014, he received a call to respond, along with an ambulance, to a residence on Coyle Lane. 

At 6:25 a.m., he arrived at the residence and was admitted by “the homeowner.” Lying on the 

kitchen floor was a woman “with a blanket wrapped around her and she was whimpering.” The 

woman had “severe” facial injuries and was difficult to understand. She said that she had been 

involved in “an ATV accident.” Bradley asked her why she had the blanket on. “The folks there 

at the residence” explained that the woman was naked when she came to their house. The woman 

told them her clothes burned in the ATV accident. Bradley did not see or smell anything consistent 

with a fire. The ambulance arrived and the woman was taken to Ferrell Hospital. 

¶ 11 A search of defendant’s trailer on Coyle Lane in Equality, Illinois, revealed an apparent 

bloodstain on a wall in the hallway. A sample of this stain was subjected to DNA analysis at the 

Illinois State Police forensics lab and, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, was found to 

be Williford’s blood. Defendant’s shirt was also examined by the forensics lab and, to a reasonable 
6 

degree of scientific certainty, contained blood from defendant and Williford. Defendant’s trailer 

also contained a bra on the living-room floor and a bed with apparent bloodstains on and near it. 

Outside the trailer was a wooden pole on the ground near the back door, a knife near the front 

steps, and Williford’s vehicle with a flat rear tire. 

¶ 12 Defendant was arrested on August 19, 2014. An Illinois State Police trooper photographed 

defendant at the time of his arrest, and two of those photos were admitted into evidence. Later, a 

correctional officer booked defendant into jail, at which it was noted that defendant had no injuries. 

¶ 13 At the jail, defendant was interrogated by two special agents of the Illinois State Police, 

also on August 19, 2014. The interrogation was audio and video recorded. The camera was focused 

on defendant’s face and upper body. Throughout the interrogation, which was published to the 

court, defendant was quite animated, oftentimes gesturing with both hands when he described 

fighting with Williford or when he made his points. Defendant claimed Williford was the 

aggressor, and he was merely trying to defend himself. He seemed to minimize Williford’s injuries. 

¶ 14 The defense presented a case in chief, which consisted mainly of defendant’s own 

testimony. Defendant, who was 55 years old, testified that he was at Teresa Williford’s house on 

August 18, 2014, as Williford smoked methamphetamine. Later, she took a shower, and afterwards 

she sat in her terrycloth robe while balancing a machete on her legs. Defendant repeatedly asked 

her what she was doing, but she “had a real glazed look in her eyes” and did not respond. Taking 

the machete from Williford’s lap, defendant threw it across the room. Then, he told Williford to 

“take [him] home.” Defendant did not have a driver’s license, and Williford oftentimes provided 

rides. Defendant put his overnight bag in Williford’s car. Williford came outside, holding a frozen 

Gatorade that she tapped with a butcher knife, eating the chunks off the blade. When Williford got 

inside the car, defendant asked her what she was doing, and she answered that she was eating 
7 

frozen Gatorade and that it made her blood feel better, which defendant considered a “bizarre 

statement.” Williford drove to defendant’s trailer on Coyle Lane in Equality, Illinois, and 

defendant “kept an eye on her the whole way.”

¶ 15 Defendant further testified that as they arrived at his trailer, he told Williford that he did 

not want her using drugs, and that she, contrary to her promise, had not stopped associating with 

drug abusers. He said that he was “done with this” and that he “want[ed] nothing else to do with 

it.” Williford replied that she had given up everything for him. She became “really agitated” and 

referred to her two children who had been taken away, and adopted, due to her persistent drug use. 

As they walked to the trailer’s front door, Williford still held the knife that she had used to eat the 

frozen Gatorade. He told her, “don’t come no closer with that knife,” but she did so. Afraid of 

what she might be capable of, given that she “wasn’t in her right mind” due to drugs, defendant 

“tackled” her, and they ended up at the bottom of the porch steps. She held on to the knife, but he 

held on to her wrist, as the two of them “wrestled.” He “elbowed” her, hitting her in the face with 

“everything [he] had.” Williford repeatedly kicked him, and he “kicked back.” Defendant felt 

“nicks” on his chest from the knife, and he received “a pretty good cut” across his back, though 

defendant was unaware of it until the next morning, when his boss drew his attention to it. The 

struggle continued. Defendant grabbed Williford from behind and wrapped his legs around her. At 

that point, “she kind of gave up” and released the knife. Defendant kicked the knife away, and 

Williford started to cry. He invited her inside. They sat and talked about the agreement she had 

made, and broken, not to associate with drug abusers. Defendant again declared that he no longer 

wanted anything to do with her. Williford again became “real agitated,” and defendant told her 

that she had to go. He “basically forced her outside.” 
8 

¶ 16 According to defendant, Williford headed toward her car, while he walked back into the 

trailer, and into his bedroom, to take off his boots. Evening was settling in. Then, Williford 

appeared in the room, wearing only panties, and suggested they sleep together. She pleaded and

said that she was cold. Defendant threw her an old Army jacket. He started to leave the room, but 

she grabbed a stick from the hallway and hit him, hard, in the head. When he put his hand to his 

head, she struck him in the hand. The two fought for the stick. Eventually, they reached the back 

door of the trailer. Defendant tried to push Williford out the back door, but she grabbed his hair, 

and he went out, too. They landed on the ground and wrestled again. Then, defendant said, “Just 

stop.” Williford “let up and got up” and asked for a drink of water. Defendant told her to get her 

own drink, and he walked inside the trailer. He saw Williford outside, “milling around” the 

property, and told her to leave. After that, he placed his furniture against the front door, to block 

the door, because it could be locked only from the outside. That was the last he saw of Williford.

¶ 17 During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked defendant whether he, in 2004, had been 

convicted of a federal charge of possession of a machine gun, and defendant answered in the 

affirmative. Defendant also acknowledged that he was sentenced to more than 80 months in prison, 

and that he was in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons until after 2009. There was no objection 

from defense counsel.

¶ 18 After questioning defendant, the prosecutor offered as evidence “an exemplified and selfauthenticating” copy of defendant’s conviction in the Southern District of Illinois in case No. 02-

CR-40068-001. At that time, the prosecutor did not specify the nature of the prior conviction, nor 

did he offer a reason or rationale for the conviction’s admission into evidence. The defense had no 

objection, and the court admitted the certified copy into evidence that revealed defendant was 

sentenced to the Bureau of Prisons for 84 months, concurrent, for three federal felony offenses: 
9 

(1) felon in possession of a firearm, (2) possession of a machine gun, and (3) possession with intent 

to distribute marijuana. 

¶ 19 After the close of evidence, the parties made closing arguments. The State devoted a 

portion of its closing argument to the credibility of Williford versus the credibility of defendant. 

One factor to consider, the State suggested, was the fact that defendant had “a prior felony 

conviction.” The prosecutor said nothing more about the prior conviction, and defense counsel did 

not mention it at all. The court took the matter under advisement.

¶ 20 On March 5, 2018, the court announced its verdicts and found defendant guilty on both 

counts of aggravated battery. From its detailed discussion, the court found Williford’s testimony

more credible than defendant’s, in large part, because of their “demeanor *** while testifying” 

and the extent and severity of the injuries suffered by Williford, which the court found consistent 

with Williford’s testimony and inconsistent with defendant’s. By way of contrast, the court saw 

“no or at best very few injuries” to defendant in the photos taken at the time of his arrest or in the 

interrogation video made the same day. The court did not mention defendant’s prior convictions 

in the Southern District of Illinois. No posttrial motion was filed.

¶ 21 On April 16, 2018, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court heard from 10 sworn 

witnesses. One witness was a woman who had been battered and choked by defendant, possibly in 

2014 but prior to the offenses in this case. Five police officers testified about other crimes that 

defendant had committed, both before and after the offenses in this case. Among those other crimes 

were the weapons and drug charges that resulted in federal convictions in the Southern District of 

Illinois. In a statement in allocution, defendant said that he was “very regretful and apologetic for 

the harm that Ms. Williford endured” and that he had “a lot of remorse” for his actions. He 

explained that his misbehavior resulted from a longstanding drug abuse problem. The court found 
10 

that count I merged with count II. For count II, aggravated battery, a Class 1 felony, the court 

sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for 10 years and to mandatory supervised release for 2 

years. The prison sentence was ordered consecutive to the prison sentences that might be imposed 

in two Williamson County felony cases, which were pending at the time of sentencing in the instant 

case. No postsentencing motion was filed.

¶ 22 On May 15, 2018, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The circuit court appointed OSAD to 

represent defendant.

¶ 23 ANALYSIS

¶ 24 Defendant’s appointed attorney in this appeal, OSAD, concluded this appeal lacks merit, 

and it filed an Anders motion to withdraw as counsel, along with a brief in support thereof. In its 

Anders brief, OSAD raised three potential appeal issues: (1) whether evidence of prior bad acts 

was properly presented, (2) whether defendant voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial, and 

(3) whether the State violated the speedy-trial or compulsory-joinder statutes. These issues were 

not preserved for review but will be treated as if they were. This court agrees these potential issues 

have no merit. 

¶ 25 Prior Bad Acts

¶ 26 First, OSAD raised the issue of whether defendant’s federal convictions in the Southern 

District of Illinois, in case No. 02-CR-40068-001, were improperly presented. The prosecutor 

asked defendant, during cross-examination, whether he had been convicted on a federal charge of 

possession of a machine gun. The prosecutor did not explain why he asked this question, and the 

defense did not object. However, in his closing argument, the prosecutor made clear that he had 

raised the prior conviction for impeachment purposes, as a means of attacking defendant’s 

credibility as a witness, and for that reason only. Though it drew no objection from the defense, 
11 

the question was nevertheless improper. Cross-examining a defendant about a prior conviction is, 

in general, improper. People v. Madison, 56 Ill. 2d 476, 488 (1974). The proper way for the State 

to introduce a defendant’s prior conviction as a means of impeaching him or attacking his 

credibility is “by offering the record or an authenticated copy into evidence when the State is 

putting in rebuttal evidence.” People v. Kellas, 72 Ill. App. 3d 445, 452 (1979). Here, the 

prosecutor did, in fact, offer “an exemplified and self-authenticating” copy of defendant’s 

conviction during rebuttal, but nevertheless defendant was forced to acknowledge the conviction 

during cross-examination. 

¶ 27 The error here, however, was not serious and does not require reversal. “While the 

presentation of the prior conviction by means of cross-examination was improper, reversal is not 

required unless the error has deprived defendant of substantial justice or influenced the 

determination of his guilt.” Madison, 56 Ill. 2d at 488. The error has neither deprived defendant of 

substantial justice nor influenced the determination of his guilt. The evidence of guilt, described 

supra, was overwhelming. As the court noted in its findings of fact at the trial’s close, the Teresa 

Williford who testified in court was “unrecognizable” in the photos taken at the hospital on August 

19, 2014, while a photo of defendant, taken at the time of his arrest on that same date, did not show 

any “recognizable injuries to him at all.” Nothing in the court’s lengthy remarks at the trial’s close 

suggested that the State’s error in introducing defendant’s prior conviction influenced the 

determination of guilt. Furthermore, a trial judge, sitting as a factfinder at a bench trial, “is 

presumed to know the law and to consider only proper evidence in rendering judgment.” (Internal 

quotation marks omitted.) People v. Duff, 374 Ill. App. 3d 599, 605 (2007). OSAD’s first potential 

issue is without merit.
12 

¶ 28 Waiver of Right to Jury Trial

¶ 29 Second, OSAD raised the issue of whether defendant waived his right to a jury trial 

voluntarily. Both the federal and Illinois constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant’s right to a 

trial by jury. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 8, 13. A defendant may 

waive his right to a jury trial by knowingly and understandingly waiving the right in open court. 

725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2016). No specific admonition or advice from the circuit court is 

necessary to make the defendant’s waiver effective. People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 66 (2008). 

“The determination of whether a jury waiver is valid cannot rest on any precise formula, but rather 

depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Id. The statutory requirement of 

a written waiver (725 ILCS 5/115-1 (West 2016)) “is prophylactic in nature, thus allowing a court 

to conduct a review of the record to establish whether a defendant’s jury waiver was made 

understandingly.” People v. Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d 462, 468 (1997). Where the facts are not in dispute, 

the issue of whether defendant knowingly and understandingly, and in open court, waived his right 

to a jury trial is a question of law, and appellate review is de novo. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at 66.

¶ 30 Here, on February 27, 2017, the report of proceedings confirmed the court thoroughly 

admonished and questioned defendant regarding his jury waiver. Defendant knew that only he 

could decide whether to be tried by a jury or by the court, and he freely chose to be tried by the 

court. Defendant did not need or request additional time to discuss the matter with counsel. He 

confirmed no improper threats or promises were made. The report of proceedings leaves no doubt 

that defendant’s voluntary jury waiver was made knowingly and with understanding. OSAD’s 

second potential issue has no merit.
13 

¶ 31 Violations of Speedy-Trial or Compulsory-Joinder Statutes

¶ 32 Third, OSAD raises the issue of whether the State violated the speedy-trial or compulsoryjoinder statutes. The record disclosed that defendant was taken into custody in this case on August 

19, 2014, and bonded out of jail on September 22, 2014. His trial began on February 20, 2018.

While in custody, defendant never demanded a speedy trial. Once out on bond, defendant never 

filed a written demand for a speedy trial. Therefore, he never invoked the speedy-trial act. 725 

ILCS 5/103-5(b) (West 2014). Between the time the first (or, original) count of aggravated battery 

was filed, in August 2014, and the second (or, subsequent) count of aggravated battery was filed, 

in April 2016, more than 18 months elapsed. Because the two counts arose from the same facts, 

compulsory joinder might seem to be a possible issue on appeal, but for the fact that no speedytrial demand was ever filed. “ ‘Once a speedy-trial demand is filed, the multiple charges are subject 

to the same speedy-trial period.’ ” People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100, ¶ 10 (quoting People v. 

Quigley, 183 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (1998)). Here, where there was no speedy-trial demand filed, there can 

be no compulsory-joinder issue in this case. Therefore, this potential issue is frivolous.

¶ 33 CONCLUSION

¶ 34 None of the three potential issues discussed by OSAD in its Anders brief have any merit

and this court finds no significant error upon review of the record. Accordingly, OSAD is granted 

leave to withdraw as defendant’s counsel on appeal, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

¶ 35 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.