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).

2022 IL App (3d) 210014-U

Order filed August 31, 2022

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2022 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JESUS SANCHEZ, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 14th Judicial Circuit, 

Rock Island County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-21-0014 

Circuit No. 16-CF-625 

Honorable 

Norma Kauzlarich, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Daugherity and Peterson concurred in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) The motion to suppress was properly denied. (2) The court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying the defendant’s request to represent himself.

¶ 2 The defendant, Jesus Sanchez, appeals his conviction for unlawful possession with intent 

to deliver a controlled substance. The defendant argues that the Rock Island circuit court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress without making an explicit ruling as to whether the officer 

facilitated the canine’s entry into his vehicle. The defendant further argues that the court abused 

its discretion by denying his request to represent himself.
2 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The defendant was charged with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled 

substance (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2016)), and unlawful possession of a controlled 

substance (id. § 402(a)(2)(A)).

¶ 5 Appointed counsel filed a motion to suppress evidence, and in January 2017, the court

held a hearing on the motion. The State advised the court that its understanding was that the 

defendant’s first language was Spanish but that he was fluent in English and was able to proceed 

without an interpreter. The defendant stated that he understood English and did not need an 

interpreter. Counsel advised that he was confident the defendant understood English well enough 

to proceed with the hearing. The court found that the defendant fluently spoke and understood 

English. The matter proceeded without an interpreter.

¶ 6 Officer Andrew Raya testified that on July 20, 2016, he conducted a traffic stop of the 

defendant’s vehicle after observing the defendant fail to stop at a red light. Raya’s vehicle was 

not equipped with audio or video recording devices. Raya asked the defendant to exit the vehicle, 

handcuffed him and searched him. When the canine unit arrived, the driver’s door to the 

defendant’s vehicle was open. After the canine alerted on the vehicle, Raya searched it and 

located cocaine. The defendant was interviewed but, at the defendant’s request, the interview 

was not recorded. 

¶ 7 Officer Jonathan Genisio testified that he was a canine handler and was called to conduct 

a free-air sniff of the defendant’s vehicle. Genisio and his canine, Luna, went around the driver’s 

door because it had been left open. He stated “[a]s we walked around the driver’s door, Luna 

sniffed the inside of the vehicle. She kind of stopped there for a minute, sniffed back and forth 

along the floorboard of the vehicle.” They continued down the side and to the rear of the vehicle.
3 

Then they turned around and as they went back up the driver’s side, Luna stopped at the driver’s 

door and “sniffed along the floorboard. She did put her paws on the floorboard of [the] vehicle 

and leaned her head inside the vehicle, sniffed,” and alerted. Genisio did not open the door to 

assist Luna’s sniff of the vehicle or direct Luna into the vehicle to sniff. Luna did not jump into 

the vehicle. During defense counsel’s cross-examination of Genisio, the court interrupted and 

told him that his “client is signaling to me. I don’t know what he’s signaling to me, sir.”

¶ 8 Counsel called the defendant as a witness. He asked the defendant to say and spell his 

name and the defendant stated his name. Counsel then asked him to spell it and the defendant 

repeated his name. Counsel stated, “You don’t know how to spell it?” and the defendant replied 

“No.” The following exchange then occurred: 

“THE COURT: Do you know how to spell? 

 THE DEFENDANT: I don’t want to.

THE COURT: You what?

THE DEFENDANT: I don’t want to.

THE COURT: I don’t care if you don’t want to ***. You are required to 

spell your name if you would for the court record.

THE DEFENDANT: No, that’s all right. I don’t want to.”

¶ 9 The video recording from Genisio’s vehicle was admitted into evidence. The State 

represented it was the only video available. The video shows the defendant’s driver’s side door 

left open after he exits the vehicle. The State argued that the canine sticking her head in the door 

was permissible because the door was open, and the canine was not directed into the vehicle by 

the police. Defense counsel filed a brief arguing that it was not a valid free-air sniff because the 

police used a “set-up procedure” by leaving the defendant’s vehicle door open, allowing the 
4 

canine to sniff inside the vehicle. The court denied the motion, finding the stop was justified, the 

free-air sniff was allowed, and the canine alert provided probable cause to search the vehicle.

¶ 10 Pretrial proceedings continued until the trial was ultimately held at the end of May 2019. 

During that time, the defense sought and was granted numerous continuances. The defendant 

was represented by four different attorneys. The discharge of, or request to discharge, each 

attorney was at the defendant’s insistence. The defendant’s reasoning behind demanding the 

attorneys be removed from his case varied and included allegations that the attorney was not 

doing anything, the defendant did not “like the way [the attorney] takes this case,” the attorney 

was making decisions without him, the attorney “compromised this case,” the attorney was not 

working in his interest, the attorneys did not care when he told them the video was fake, and the 

attorney only made negative comments. Two of the defendant’s demands to remove his attorney 

came on the day scheduled for trial and one came a few days prior to when trial was scheduled. 

In addressing one of the defendant’s requests to remove his attorney, the court stated it was “not 

going to subject [counsel] to [this]” and appointed a new private attorney. On another occasion, 

the State noted that it observed the defendant’s “communication with his counsel over simple 

matters was nonexistent and aggressive.”

¶ 11 During the pretrial proceedings, despite the court having found and the defendant having 

represented that he fluently spoke and understood English, the defendant vacillated between 

speaking in English, demanding an interpreter, and directly conversing with the court in Spanish.

During one hearing the following exchange occurred:

“THE DEFENDANT: Can we tell the attorneys— 

(The defendant speaks in Spanish to the Court.)

THE COURT: Now he wants a translator in Spanish.
5 

[The defendant], you’ve spent the last year telling me you don’t need a 

translator. Why are you changing today?

(The Court speaks in Spanish to the defendant.)

THE COURT: I’m telling him I’m tired of his attitude towards me.

 * * * 

(The Court speaks in Spanish to the defendant.)

THE COURT: ** [H]e’s now complaining about me because I told him 

that his attitude is, you know— 

(The defendant speaks in Spanish to the Court.)

 * * *

THE COURT: You didn’t even give [counsel] a chance, and she spoke 

Spanish and *** she’s a private attorney ***. ***

(The defendant speaks in Spanish to the Court.)

THE COURT: So now all of the sudden, it’s only—it’s all Spanish. See?

* * * 

THE COURT: *** [T]he reason that I told you that I’m tired of your 

attitude is whenever you come in here, you’re very defiant. You’re angry. You’re 

disrespectful to the Court, and so I—I’ve never been disrespectful to you. *** 

(The defendant speaks in Spanish to the Court.)

 * * * 
6 

THE COURT: It’s your attitude. It’s your attitude. They told you to stand 

up and you—you’re going to sit there because you’re going to show me. Just now 

they— 

THE DEFENDANT: It’s not more formal. They never was— 

THE COURT: That’s disrespecting the Court when you don’t stand up 

when they tell you to. You didn’t want to get dressed today. They had to force 

you to get dressed today. You come in here every time and it’s your attitude ***. 

That’s all, so—I’ve had worse attitudes from people, but it doesn’t intimidate me, 

and it doesn’t change my mind, so it doesn’t matter.” 

¶ 12 The defendant sought discovery related to video recordings, which sometimes resulted in 

continuances. On one occasion, defense counsel noted the defendant wanted him to request 

discovery of the video from Raya’s vehicle and Raya’s interview of the defendant. Counsel 

requested the discovery, and the State advised that it had turned over all relevant discovery 

including all video recordings. The defendant again insisted that defense counsel seek discovery 

regarding the video recordings and despite advising the defendant that he had already sought the 

discovery, defense counsel filed another discovery request. The State advised the information 

had been sought numerous times and that the State turned over all videos that exist. The State 

further noted that the defendant had his own expert review the video and the expert concluded it 

was not altered.

¶ 13 Shortly before trial, the court was informed that the defendant wanted to have a bench 

trial. The defendant was uncooperative while the court attempted to question him regarding a 

jury waiver, leading the court to tell him it was “trying to get through a process here,” to which 
7 

the defendant responded in Spanish. The court replied “No, you’re not. What you’re doing is not 

responding to my questions.” The court accepted the jury waiver.

¶ 14 On the trial date, the court asked if the parties were ready, and defense counsel advised 

the court that it was ready, but the defendant no longer wanted him as counsel. The court noted 

this was the defendant’s fourth attorney, and the defendant responded “Yes, he is” and the 

interpreter also responded, “That’s right.” The court stated they were proceeding with counsel. 

Through the interpreter, the defendant stated his attorney was fired and he had a right to proceed 

on his own, which is what he was choosing. The court told the defendant that 

“under the law, you have the right to request to represent yourself and the Court 

can decide if you have the educational level, the experience and the ability to 

represent yourself. I can’t find that in this case, sir. 

You don’t speak English. So seemingly, you don’t understand all the legal 

aspects of defending your own case, much less the intricacies of presenting any 

cross-examination of any of the State’s witnesses. 

So for those reasons, sir, I cannot allow you to represent yourself because 

that would be a disservice to you.” 

The defendant responded, through the interpreter, that he told counsel he wanted his expert 

witness regarding the authenticity of the video to appear. Counsel responded that the expert’s 

conclusion was that the video was not tampered with, which would not help the defendant’s case. 

The court noted the explanation, and that the defendant was holding up his hand indicating for 

the translator to stop translating.

¶ 15 The court moved on to handling the pretrial motions, at which time the interpreter 

notified the court that the defendant was raising his hand making it hard to do her job. As the 
8 

State was calling its first witness, the interpreter advised the court that the defendant was making 

distracting comments to her. The court asked the defendant if he would like to be present for the 

trial and through the interpreter, he said he believed so. The court stated, “you requested an 

interpreter, despite many, many, many instances where you have insisted that you speak 

English,” and the defendant must allow the interpreter to do her job.

¶ 16 The matter proceeded to trial and the court found the defendant guilty of possession with 

intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment. The 

defendant appeals.

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18 A. Canine Sniff

¶ 19 The defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress without a 

ruling on the issue of whether Genisio facilitated the canine’s entry into his vehicle because 

Genisio’s testimony was inconsistent as to whether he facilitated the entry or if it was the 

canine’s instinct. He argues that remand is warranted for the court to make a ruling on this issue.

¶ 20 Initially, we note that the parties dispute whether this issue was forfeited due to the 

defendant’s failure to raise the issue in a posttrial motion. In People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, 

¶ 54, citing to People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 190 (1988), the supreme court stated that 

“[o]rdinarily, to preserve an issue for review a party must raise it at trial and in a written posttrial 

motion.” However, it concluded that “constitutional issues that were previously raised at trial and 

could be raised later in a postconviction petition are not subject to forfeiture on direct appeal 

under Enoch.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. Here, the defendant raised this issue in the circuit

court, and it is a constitutional issue that could be raised in a postconviction petition. Therefore, 

the issue is not forfeited, and we address it on the merits.
9 

¶ 21 “The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable 

searches and seizures without a warrant.” People v. Pulido, 2017 IL App (3d) 150215, ¶ 44. “A 

dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other 

than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the 

Fourth Amendment.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410 (2005). A police canine’s entry into 

a vehicle while conducting a free-air sniff does not violate the fourth amendment when the police 

do not direct or facilitate the canine’s entry. See United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359, 364 (10th 

Cir. 1989) (holding that a police canine’s jump into a vehicle through an open hatchback prior to 

alerting to the scent of drugs did not violate the Fourth Amendment where the canine’s actions 

were “instinctive,” the officers did not ask the defendant to open the hatchback to facilitate the 

search, and the officer did not encourage the canine to jump into the vehicle); United States v. 

Lyons, 486 F.3d 367, 373 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Absent police misconduct, the instinctive actions of a 

trained canine do not violate the Fourth Amendment.”); United States v. Pierce, 622 F.3d 209, 

214 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting that “[w]here decisions have held that an interior sniff was 

unconstitutional, the courts have concluded that the officer ‘facilitated or encouraged’ the dog’s 

entry into the car”). 

¶ 22 In this matter, the defendant’s door was left open when he exited the vehicle. The door 

remained open at the time Genisio conducted the free-air sniff. Genisio testified that he did not

open the door to assist his canine. Further, he unequivocally testified that he did not direct the 

canine into the vehicle to sniff. While Genisio was unsure whether the canine placed her paws on 

the inside of the vehicle, he was clear that he did not direct her to sniff the interior. Therefore, his 

testimony was not inconsistent as to whether he facilitated the canine’s entry into the vehicle as 

the defendant claims and instead, is consistent that he did not do so. Further, there was no 
10 

evidence presented to contradict Genisio’s testimony that he did not direct his canine to sniff the 

interior of the vehicle. In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to remand the matter because 

the evidence was not inconsistent, and it shows that the canine’s limited entry into the interior of 

the vehicle was instinctive rather than facilitated by the police such that it did not violate the 

fourth amendment. Additionally, the court had this evidence and the arguments of the parties 

regarding facilitation before it when it issued its ruling, such that the court implicitly found that 

Genisio did not facilitate the canine’s entry when it denied suppression. Based on the foregoing 

we conclude the motion to suppress was properly denied.

¶ 23 B. Right of Self-Representation

¶ 24 The defendant argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying him his right 

to self-representation. The State appears to concede that the court’s stated basis for denying the 

defendant’s request to represent himself was improper but argues that the denial was nonetheless 

proper due to the defendant’s behavior throughout the proceedings and the timing of the request.

¶ 25 The defendant acknowledges that he failed to raise this issue in a posttrial motion, but he 

argues that it is reversable error under the second prong of the plain error doctrine. The first step 

in plain error analysis is to determine whether a “plain error” occurred. People v. Piatkowski, 225 

Ill. 2d 551, 564-65 (2007). “The word ‘plain’ here is synonymous with ‘clear’ and is the 

equivalent of ‘obvious.’ ” Id. at 565 n.2.

¶ 26 A circuit court’s denial of a defendant’s request for self-representation is reviewed for an 

abuse of discretion. People v. Burton, 184 Ill. 2d 1, 25 (1998). “A defendant’s lack of civility and 

decorum, unlike his lack of legal ability, is a valid basis for denying his request for selfrepresentation.” People v. Rainey, 2019 IL App (1st) 160187, ¶ 74. The request for selfrepresentation may be denied where the defendant “ ‘deliberately engages in serious and 
11 

obstructionist misconduct.’ ” Id. (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975)).

“The timing of a defendant’s request is also significant. A number of courts have held that a 

defendant’s request is untimely where it is first made just before the commencement of trial, 

after trial begins, or after meaningful proceedings have begun.” Burton, 184 Ill. 2d at 24. The 

right to self-representation “may not be used as a weapon to cause delay.” Rainey, 2019 IL App 

(1st) 160187, ¶ 51. 

¶ 27 The record shows that the defendant engaged in a pattern of obstreperous, obstructive, 

and dilatory behavior throughout the course of the proceedings. Supra ¶¶ 7-8, 10-14. He was 

defiant—even refusing the basic task of spelling his name while testifying and after being 

directed to do so by the court. Further, his conduct evidences a desire to delay the proceedings as 

two of his demands for counsel to withdraw came on the day scheduled for trial and another

came a few days prior to the day scheduled for trial. Moreover, on more than one occasion he 

sought discovery which the State had previously provided or which did not exist. Additionally, 

although the defendant did not request a continuance at the time he indicated a desire to represent 

himself, part of his expressed dissatisfaction with counsel was that counsel failed to secure the 

presence of a witness for trial, thus indicating the defendant would need a continuance to secure 

the witness he wished to present. Based on the foregoing, while the court’s stated basis for 

denying the defendant the right to represent himself was improper (see Rainey, 2019 IL App 

(1st) 160187, ¶¶ 71-72), the defendant’s request was properly denied due to the combination of 

the timing of the request and the defendant’s pretrial pattern of obstructive behavior. See People 

v. Tondini, 2019 IL App (3d) 170370, ¶ 25 (providing that this court “may affirm for any reason 

apparent on the record, regardless of the lower court’s reasoning”). Finding no error, we need not 

continue to the second-prong analysis. 
12 

¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 29 The judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed. 

¶ 30 Affirmed.