Thi rd D i vi si on February 2, 2011

No. 1-09- 0398

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 08 CR 4949 ) MONTA TE THOMA S, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Mich

ele M. Si mm ons, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JUS TI CE NE VI LLE deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Mu rp hy and St eele c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINION Fo llowing a ben

ch trial, the trial

court found that Montate Thomas v iolated t he armed h

abi tual crim in al statute. 720

ILCS 5/24-1 .7 (West 200 6). On app eal, Tho mas co nt ends t hat : ( 1) t he pros ecution

did n ot prove that he comm

itted two pr io rfo r cib le felo nie s, be ca us e t he pr o se cu t io n d id not sh ow that Th

omas ’s pri or con vi cti on fo rat t emp t ed mur de rqu alifie d a s a fo r cib le fe lo ny; ( 2) his trial co unse l did no t pr ovid e effect ive assist ance ; and (3) the armed h abi tual cri mi nal statut e vi olates the ex pos t facto claus es of the Il l i noi s an d Un i ted States C onsti

tution s. We hold that (1) every

attempted murder

convicti on count s as a forcib le f elony ; (2) defense counsel subj ected the Stat e’s cas e to meani ngf ul a dversari al t est ing and t her efo re pr ovid ed e ffect ive assi stance; and (3) the armed h abi tualcrim in al statut e does not violate the Ill in ois an d Uni ted St ates Co nst it ut io ns. T he r efo r e, we affir m.1-09-0398

-2- BACK GROUND On Novem ber 11, 2007, Joshua Hum es rode as a passen

ger in a car Thomas

was dr iving in Lans in g, Illinois, w hen D etective B arajas ef fected a traff

ic stop o f thei

r car. Barajas

found an
un lo ad ed as sa ult r ifle int he ca r. At t he police station, Thomas signed a wri

tt en statemen

t in wh ic h he sai d: "At ab o ut 1 a
. m. my cousin, Joshua, calle d me on my phone to pick him up. ** * Idr ov e to Jo shua 's ho use . * ** At Jo shua 's ho use he ga ve me a ch rom e a ss aul t rif l e. I took i t f rom hi m a nd we ag re ed th at I would pay

hi m f or it l ater. The gun

wasnow m

i ne ." The ar med h ab i tual cri m i n al sta tute ba ns the pos se ss i on of

a f i rea rm by an y pe rs on with two pri orconv i cti ons f or forc i bl e f elonies. 72 0 IL CS 5/2 4-1 .7 ( W es t 200 6). Th omasha d th ree pri or co nvictio ns for re sident ial burg lary, o ne bur glar y convict ion, one ar med violenc e co nvictio n, a nd o ne pri orconv i cti on f or attem pted m urder. A gr and jury

in dicted Thomas f

or violating the

armed h abi tual crim in al statut e. The grand j ury s peci fi ed onl y the attempted murder and one of the r e si dentia

l bur gl ary con vic tions as the pri

or forcibl e fel onie s that made Th

omas’ s possessi

on of the ri fl

e a vi olation of the armed h

abi tual cri mi nal statut e. At t r ial, t he pr os ecu t ion r elied pr incipally on t he wr itt en st at ement Thomas signed. Thom

as testifi ed that when h

e pi cked up Hume s on N ove mber 1 1, 200 7, Humes put t he as sau lt r ifl e in the t ru nk of Thom as’s ca r. The rif le stayed in the car when

they stopped and Humes

steppedou t of t he
car f or af ew m i nute s. Thomas

testifi ed that Humes as

ked Thomas

to cl ai m that he owned the rif

le ,1-09-0398

-3-

because Hume s was on parole and woul d get life i

n pri son i f h

e was caugh

t with the gun. The

parties stipul ated t hat T ho ma s had pr ior co nvictio ns for at t empt ed mur der and r eside nt ial burg lary. T he pr os ecu t ion p re sent ed no evidenc e o f the fact s t hat sup po rt ed t he at t empt ed mur der co nvictio n. Defens e counsel

ar gue d t hat Tho mas did no t have c ons t ru ct ivepossession of the rif le b ecause he n ever i ntended to exerci se control over it. The trial court said: “[T]hi s comes

down to an issue

of credi bi li ty. *** * * *
*** [T homas ] ha d eve ry inte nt t o g ain co nt ro l over t he we apo n. *** Lo ok ingat t he credib il

ity of the witnesses, I do not bel ie ve that [Thomas] was not t he pe r so n w ho int en de d t o ga in co nt ro l over t his wea po n. I do not bel ie ve that it was h is cousin, Joshua’s ***. * * * T his Court fi

ndsthat att em

pt fi rst degree murder

f al l s wi thi n th at d ef i ni ti on of be i ng a f orci bl e f elony .” The courtf

oun d th at Th om as v i ol ate d th

e a rm ed h ab i tual cri m i n al sta tute an d s en ten ce d h i m to nine years i n pr i son. AN AL YSIS I s A t t emp t ed Mu r de ra F o r cib le F elo ny? On appeal , Thomas does n

ot contest t he suf

fi ci ency of the evidence t o sup por t t he tr ial cou rt ’s1-09-0398

-4-

finding that he poss ess ed th e rif

l e. He ar gu es t ha t t he pr o o f o f his previous conviction f or at tempted murder did no t pr ove t hat he com m i tted a f orc i b l e f el on y an d, t h er ef ore , the S tate

f ai l ed to prove that he violated the arme d hab itual crim in al statut e. We revi

ew de novo t he qu esti on

of l aw as to whether evi dence tha t a d ef en da nt h ad a p riorconv

i cti on f or attem pted m urder, wit hou t any det ails abo ut t he crim e, prov estha t he com m i tted a f orci bl e f el ony f orpurposes of the arm

ed hab itual crim in al statut e. The armed

hab itual crim in al statute ad

opts the d ef i ni tion of f orci bl e f elony f rom s ection 2-8 of the Crim

in al Code of 1961 (720 I LCS 5/2-8 ( West 2006)) . Sect ion 2-8 provides:

" ‘Forci ble fel ony’ me ans treason, f

irst degree m

urder, *** burglary

, residen tial bu r gl ar y, *** and an

y other fel ony whi ch i nvolv es the use or t hreat of phy si cal force or vi ole nc e." 7 20 IL CS 5/2 -8 (West 200 6). In addi tion to t he attempted m

urdera nd the arm

ed vi olen ce convi ctions, Thom

as had f our prior convi

ctions f or crim es l is ted as forci

ble fel onie s i n the statute: o ne fo rbu r gl ar y, an d th ree f or resi dentia l bur glar y. Ho weve r, t he grand j ury i n the i ndictmen t specif ie d one re sident ial burg lary and t he at t empt ed mur der as t he co nvictio ns that made Thom as’s of fen se a vi olation of the armed h

abi tual crim in al sta tute . Th e i n di ctm en t h er e s uf f i ce s to sta te th e e l em en ts of t he of

f en se , an d the s ti pul ati on at trial suf fi ces to prov

e the of f en se , i f the proof of the atte m pte d m urder e sta bl i sh esthe com m i ss i on of a f orci bl e f elony . Bec aus e the

l egi slature did not incl

ude attempted murder as one of the off enses li stedin section 2-8, and b ecause the prosecution prese nted no evi

dence co ncer ni n g th

e f ac ts unde rlying

t he at t empt ed mur der co nvictio n, we must deci de whether ev ery attempted m

urder
ne ce ss ar ily

qua lif ies as a “felony

whi ch i nvol ves the us e or t hreat

of phy si cal force or vi olen

ce.” 7201-09-0398

-5-

ILCS 5/2-8 (We st 2006 ). We fi nd som e gui dance i

n cases in terpret in g a fede ral statut e si

mi la r to our armed habitual crim in al statut e. The Arm

ed Career Cri

mi nal Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1) ( 2006)) establi shes t he pe na l ti esf or pos se ss i on of

f i rea rms or am m un i ti on b y a p ers on who has t hre e pr eviou s co nvictio ns f or vi ol ent fel onie s. See Johnson v. United States , ___ U .S. ___, 1 30 S. C t. 1265 (20 10). T h e sta tute defi nes v iol ent fel onie s as those that in vol

ve the “us e, a ttem pte d us e, or

threa ten ed us e of phy si cal force against

the pe rs on of another.” 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2) (B)(i) (2006). The Uni ted St ates Su pr eme Co ur t he ld

t hat in the c ont ext of t his st at ut e, “the phr ase ‘physical for ce’ mea ns vi olen t force

-- t hat is, fo rc e ca pable o f caus ingph ys ic al pai n or in jury to another person.” Johnson v. United States , ___ U .S. at ___, 1 30 S. C t. at 1271. Si m i l arl y , we find, fo ll

owing Johnson , t hat unde r t he I llino is statut e, a fel

ony i nvol ves “ phy si cal force or vi olen

ce” i f the f

el ony c an cause

seri ous physi cal pa in or b odi l y i n j ur y to another pe

rson . 720 IL CS 5/2 -8 (West 200 6); Johnson , ___ U.S. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 1271; but see People v . Schm idt , 392 Ill . App. 3d 689, 694 (2009 ) (only enum erated aggra va ted b atteri es q

ual i f y as f orci bl e f elonies u nde r section 2-8). The Ill i noi s statute tha t de f i ne s “ f orci bl e f el ony ” doesnot req

ui re th e actu al i nf l i cti on of phy si cal in jury ; i nstead, t he statu te req uires onl y the “use or th rea t of phy si cal force or vi olen

ce.” 720 ILCS 5/2-8 ( West 2006). Our supreme cour t has ex pl ai n ed th at a f el ony i nv ol ve s th e th rea t of phy si cal fo r ce o rvio len ce if

t he fe lo n “c o nt emp lat ed t ha t vio len ce mig ht be ne ce ss ar y” to carry out the cri me. (Em phasi s om i tted.) People

v. Belk , 203 Il l . 2d 187 , 194 (2 003). In orde r f or a tr i er of f ac t to f i nd a d ef en da nt g ui l ty of atte m pte d m urder, the pros ecution1-09-0398

-6-

must pr ov e th at th e def en da n t, w i th th e s pe ci f i c i n ten t t o kill, co mmi tt ed an act that constituted a substantial

step toward

the c omm

i ssi on of the m urder. 7 20 IL CS 5/8 -4, 9-1 (We st 2006 ). Because
ev ery attempted murder i

nvol vesa sp ec i f i c i nte nt to c au se

de ath , th e tri

er of f ac t who f i nds a pe rs on gui l ty of attempted murder m

ust fi nd that the guil ty person contem

pla ted the use of suf

fi ci ent force to caus e v ery

seri ous in jury , in jury that can l ead

to death. Accordin

gly , we hold that eve

ry attempted murder qualif ie s as a fo r cib le fel

ony f or purpo ses of the arm

ed hab itual

crim in al statut e; theref

ore, Thomas’s stipul

ation that he h

ad convi ctions f or residential

burglary an

d attempted murder provi ded evi dence to prove that his posses si on of a ri fl e vi olated the arme d hab itual

crim in al statut e. Inef fecti ve A ssi stance of Couns el T ho mas ne xt co nt en ds t ha t his trial cou ns el 's repres en tation a moun ted to no rep res en

tation at al l, b ecause h

is counsel pu rs ue d a de f ense th at e ss en

ti al l y con ce de d h i s g ui l t an d f ai l ed to chal le nge t he characterization of

attem pted f i rs t degre e m

urder as a forci

ble fel ony. W e hav e al ready determi ned that t he attempted

murder qu alifie s a s a fo r cib le fe lo ny, an d t he r efo r e d efe nse co un se l did not provi dei

ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e w he n h e f ai l ed to chal l en gethe ch ara cteri za ti on of t he attempted murder as a

forci ble fel ony. See People v. Bartimo , 345 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 00, 111 3 (200 4). Th om a s as se rtst ha t his t r ial c o un se l effe ct ive ly conceded that Thomas c onstructivel y posse ssed the rifl

e when counsel elicited Tho mas’s t est imony tha t he o wned t he ca rhe dr o ve an d h e k ne w H ume s p ut a r ifle in the c ar. Con stru ct iv e po sses sion e nt ails an inte nt t o “maint ain co nt ro l and do mini on” ove r t he obje ct posse sse d. People v. Fox , 24 Ill . 2d581, 585 (1962). T he trier of fact can infer co nst ru ct ive pos se ss i on

of an obj ect from control of an area (li ke a car) and kn

owledge of the

presence o f the1-09-0398

-7-

obj ect (l i ke a g un)i n the are a. People v. Rangel , 163 Ill . App. 3d 730, 739 (1987 ). Howev er, t he defend ant can rebut the i nf eren ce. Rangel , 1 63 I ll. App. 3d a t 740 . D efense co unse l pur sue d t he rational de f ense – w e c an th i n k of n on e b ette

r – th at Th om

as di d n ot own the gu n an

d he n ever in tended to exerci se control over

i t. The tri al cou rt ob serv ed

tha t the ca se ca me down to a que sti on of credibil ity . Al thoughthe court found Th omas n ot credible , we cann

ot say that t rial counsel fai le d to subj ect the Stat e’s cas e to meani ngf ul a dversari al testing. See People v
. Hattery , 109 Ill . 2d 449, 461-62 (1985 ). A cc or dingly, we find tha t Tho mas has no t sho wn t hat he r ece ived ineffect ive
as sis t an ce o f co un se l.

Con sti tuti on al i ty of th e A rm ed Ha b i tual Cr i m i n al Sta tute Fin ally, Thomas contends t hat hi s c on v i cti on un der the a rm ed h ab i tual cri m i n al sta tute vi olated t he co nst it uti on al

pr oh i b i ti on ag ai n st ex post facto laws be cau se his pr ior co nvictio ns occurred befo re t he st at ut e wa s ena ct ed. We re view de fendant 's challenge t o t he con sti tutiona l i ty of this statut e de no vo. People v. Leo nard , 391 Il l . Ap p. 3d 92 6, 931 ( 2009)
. The Fir st and Th ird Dist ric t App ellat e C o ur t s o f t hi s state have cons ide red the sam

e i ssue advan ced b y de f en da n t an d d ec i de d i

t a dver sely to hi m. See e.g. , Leonard , 391 Ill . App. 3d 926; People v. Adams , 404 Ill . App. 3d 405 (2010 ); People v. Bailey , 396 Ill . App. 3d 459 (2009) . In Leonard , 391 Ill . App. 3d at 931 , t he r eviewing cou rt ob se rved th at rec i di

v i st s tatu tes i n th i s state have consi stently

withs to od challe

ngesto th ei

r val i di ty f or th e re as on th

at they pun i sh de f en da nt f or a new an d separate crim

e, not for t he off

enses comm itted bef ore t he statute was enacted. In such stat utes, as h

ere, de f endan t's pri or conv

i cti ons a re onl y an elem en t of the new cri me. Leonard , 3911-09-0398

-8-

Ill . App. 3d at 931. T his co ur t ap plie d t he sa me r at io na le in Bailey , 396 Ill . App. 3d at 463, and Adams , 40 4 I ll. App. 3d at 413, and li

kew is e co nclude d t hat t he ar med habit ual cr imi nal st at ut e do es no t punish a defend ant for his prio r c onvict ions, but ra t her for a new and sep arate s ubs eque nt cri me. T hu s, t his courtfound that the arm

ed h ab itu al criminal sta t ut e did no t violat e t he co nst itu t ional pr ohibit ions ag ai n st ex pos t facto l aws . Thomas argues that we shoul d reject Leonar d , Bailey and Adams beca use t hos e de cisions
co nfli ct wit h People v. Dunigan , 165 Ill . 2d 235 (1995). T he Dunigan co ur t held t hat t he hab itual crim in al act did n ot violate ex pos t facto pr inc iple s be ca us e it onl y en ha nc ed the sente nc e f ora new crim e. Dunigan , 1 65 I ll. 2d a t 240 -4 4. In Leonard , 391 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 932, the courtsp ec ifica lly addressed t his po int, explaining t hat t he co ur t in Dunigan di d n ot f i nd tha t ha bi tua l cri m i na l l eg i sl ati on must not include p re viou s co nvictio ns as an el em ent of the off

ense. A defend ant ’s pr ior cr imes co unt as el em en ts of a vi olation of the armed h

abi tual cri mi nal statut e, as the prior off

enses establ is h that t he defend ant fits in t he class of p er so ns who must not po sses s firear ms. T he ac t t hat vi ol a t es t he statut e, possession of a f irearm by a t wice- co nvicte d felo n, mus t t ake place ent irely afte r t he
enac t ment of

the armed h

abi tualcri m i na l sta tute. Th us , th e a rm ed ha bi tua l cri m i na l sta tute d oesnot
v i ol ate th e p roh i b i ti on ag ai n st ex pos t facto l aws . Leonard , 391 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 932. CONCLUSION W e f i nd tha t every atte m pte d m urder c onv

i cti on c oun ts a s a f orci bl e f el ony f orpurposes of t he arm ed ha bi tua l cri m i na l sta tute, so Th

omas ’s sti pul ati on th at he h ad pri or con vi cti ons f or1-09-0398

-9-

resi dentia l bur glar y and

at t empt ed mur der pr ove d t hat his po sses sion o f a firear m violat ed t he armed hab itual cr imi n al sta tu te. Defense counsel pur sued t he rat ional strat egy of present ing Thomas’s t est imony t o s how t hat he neve r o wned t he gu n and he n ever i ntended t o a sser t co nt ro l over t he gu n, but the tri al

court did not f

i nd Th oma s’ s testi

mony credi bl e. Because we fi

nd that defen

se counsel subj ectedthe Stat e’s cas e to meani ngf ul a dversari al testim ony, we hol d that Th om

as h as f ai l ed to sh owt hat he r ece ived ineffect iveass i stan ce of coun sel
. Foll

owing Leonard , Bailey and Adams , we ho ld that t he arm

ed hab itual

crim in al statut e does not violate t he pr o hibit i on ag ai n st ex pos t facto leg isla t io n. Ac co r di ng ly, we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af fi rmed.