SIXTH DIVISION March 5, 2010

No. 1-07- 1309 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) v. ) No. 05 CR 11448 ) MA RCU S McG

EE, ) Ho no r ab le ) La wr en ce T er r ell, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

PR ESIDI NG JU STI CECA

HI LL de li v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Defend ant Mar cus McG ee w as fo und g uilty o f resid ent ial burg lary aft er a benc h t rial and sent ence d t o 1 5 year s' impriso nment. He c ont ends on a ppe al tha t t he St at e failed t o p ro ve beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat t he uninhabit ed bu ilding he ent er ed w as a dwe lli ng plac e wit hin the me ani ng of the statut e, or t hat he was a ware of that fact. He al so contends that hi s sen tence was exce ssive and t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by defer ring a ru ling on his mot ion in limine to bar the use of e vidence of e ar lier co nvictio ns t o impea ch his cr edibility unt il after he t est ifi ed, and a lso by ru ling in f avo r o f the St at e o n t hat mot ion. Befo re t rial, d efense co unse l made an o ra l mot ion in limine to bar the State from usi ng as impeachment defend ant 's ea rlier c onvict ions fo r bu rg lary and r eside nt ial burg lary o r c onvict ions m ore than 10 y ears old, und er People v . Montgom

ery, 47 Il l . 2d 510 , 268 N .E.2d 695 (1971 ).1-07-1309

2

The State responded that it would not introduce earli er convi ctions i n i ts case-in -chief b ut rese rve d the right to i ntroduc e such

evi den ce a s i m peac hm en t if def endan t testi f i ed. Th e court as ke d d efe nse co un se l if he ha d c as e la w s up po rt ing his p o sit io n, an d c o un se l st at ed he wo uld provi de such to the court b ef

ore def endan t testi f i ed. Th e court res erved rul

i ng on the m otion . At trial , Monique H enderson testif ie d that her parents' h

ouse in May wood, Ill in ois, was damag ed in a fire on N ove mber 1 8, 200 4. Per so nal belong ings re mained in the hou se a fte r t he fire, including clo t hes, a bo ok bag a nd fur nitu re . S he visite d t he ar ea d aily to chec k o n t he condi tion of the h

ouse and i ts contents and to spend tim e there. Ab out 6 p.m. on Apri

l 10, 2005, Hen

derson went to t he h

ouse with h

er mother, Nancy Hugo. H en

ders on wen

t to the ba ck of the house , an

d H ugo wen t to the f ron t. W he n H en ders on walke d o nt o t he po rc h and o pene d t he bac k do or , she not iced it was unlo cke d and one of t he win dows was broken. She s aw def endan t standin g in side, about fi

ve f eet away, carry

in g a ki tchen kni fe and a CD case. Henderson then heard Hugo say, "what are you do in g in my house?" Defend ant loo ked up, and H ende rso n clos ed t he do or and r an t o t he fence at t he end of t he back yard . H ende rso n t hen sp ok e t o H ugo on he r c ell phone , ve rified t hat so meone was inside t he house and ca

ll ed the poli

ce. While Hende rso n was on t he pho ne, she sa w de fendant and a not her per so n ru n ou t of t he hou se t hro ugh t he bac k do or . D efenda nt dr op ped Hend er so n's bo ok bag o n t he po rc h st airs a nd said "I don't want any

tro uble," as he e

xi ted the backy

ard. About fi

ve m in utes later, police arriv

ed with de fen

dant. Henderson i

dentif ie d defen dant as the person sh

e had see n i nsi de the bui ldi ng. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, H ende rso n said no bod y had lived in the building since t he fire. She1-07-1309

3

sa i d the topf

l oor of the house wa s r ui ne d by the f i re a nd the re wasa b l

uetarp coveri ng a wi nd ow on th at f l oor. She ex

pl ai n ed th at a t th e ti me of th e b urgl ar y , s h e w as

pl an ni n g to m ov e b ack i

n to the house. Na nc y Hugo te sti

f i ed tha t sh e ow ne d the b ui l di ng at 1 216 South 3rd A ve nu e i n May wood and ha d lived t her e wit h her famil y since 19 82. She a lso t est ifi ed t hat she c heck ed o n t he condi tion of the h

ouse dail y f oll owing the fi re. On Apri

l 10, 2005, the bui

ldi ng contai ned furni tur e, applian

ces and other p ersonal bel ongings. Abo ut 6 p . m. t ha t ev en ing , Hu go we nt t o t he ho us e w it h H en de r so n a ndno t ice d a ho le in a b o ar d t ha t ha d b ee n c o ve r ing a fr o nt win do w. Hu go t he n w alk ed t o t he fr o nt do o rwh ile He nd er so n w en t ar o un d t o t he ba ck . Hu go sa w a manco ming o ut o f t he ho us e t hr o ug h t he ho le in the bo ar d, hold ing a violin cas e. He lo ok ed a t her , sa id "I'm so rr y," and went back into t he ho us e. Hu go t he n sa id, "w ha t ar e yo u d o ing in my ho us e? " a ndca lled He nd er so n o n he rce ll phon e. Hug o told He

nde rson that the re wa s a m

an i n the house, a

nd H enders on rep li ed that there wa s a n oth er man i n th e b ack. H en

ders on ca ll ed pol i ce , w h o late r a rri v ed wi th de f en da n t. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, H ugo said t hat t he ho use had g one into for eclo sur e aft er t he bur glar y, and she so ld it a t a she riff's auc t ion in Dec ember 2 006 . S he sa id no bod y li ved in t he bui ldi ng be tween the burgl

ary an d the sale. Maywo od po lice det ect ive Jo sep h Pec k t est ifi ed t hat abo ut 6 p. m. o n Apr il 10, 2 005 , he rece i ve d a dispa

tch of a poss i bl e burgl ary at 1216South 3rd

Av en ue an d drove to that locati on. On ar ri v al, Pe ck sp oke wi th Hen ders on , w

h o de sc ri b ed on e of th e of f en dersas a b l ack m

al e wi th a bald he ad, abo ut 6 feet t all and we ighing 20 0 po unds . P eck bro adc ast t hat des cr ipt ion o ver t he1-07-1309

4

radio and i

nspected the house. He recovered a blue book bag from

the rear porch, whi ch Hend er so n ident ifi

ed a s her s, a nd a vio lin case. Defend ant was late r br ou ght t o t he building by May wood po li

ce off ic er Escam

il la and i dentif ie d there by

Henderson as

the person she s aw drop a book bag and ex

it the rear of the h

ouse. Offic er E sc amilla t es t ified t ha t sho rt ly aft er 6 p . m. o n Ap r il 10 , 20 05 , he r ec eiv ed a r ad io dis pa t ch o f a b ur gla ry at 12 16 So ut h 3 r d A ve nu e a nda d es cr ipt io n o f o ne o f t he o ffen de r s. While dr iving in t he ar ea , he sa w d efe nd an t run ning aw ay fr o m t he lo ca t io n o f t he bu r gla ry. E sc amilla appro ached defen

dant and saw that he was sweating h eavily. He t old defendan

t t here was a bur glar y in pro gr ess a nd as ked him to acc omp any him to t he sc ene o f the cr ime becau se he resem bled the descri

ption of the of

fen der. Escami

ll a drove defe

ndan t t o t he h ouse, where he was ident ifi ed by He nder so n. May wood po li

ce off ic er Patrick Grandb erry testif ie d that on April

10, 2005, he was assigne d as an evide nce t echnician t o p ro ces s evide nce in co nnect ion wit h a bur glar y. At t he police station, he i

nve ntoried a cel

l ph one, pagers, to ot hpaste boxes , a CD case, a photo album and other i

tems f ound i ns i de a bl ue b ook bag

he wasgi ven b y Detectiv e Peck. Gran

dbe rry sho wed t hese items t o H ende rso n and H ugo , w ho id ent ifi ed t hem as t heirs. He a lso t oo k lat ent fingerp rint s fro m one o f the t oo t hpas t e bo xes a nd se nt t he pr ints a long wit h a co py of d efenda nt 's fi ngerprints to the Illi

nois State P olice cri

me l ab f or furt her anal

ysi s. The part ies sti

pulated that , if

call ed, Mary Beth Thomas would test if y that she was a f oren si c s ci en ti st a nd ex pert on f i ng erpri nt i denti f i ca ti on. Her ex

am i na ti on of the f i ng erpri nts on th e too th pa ste b ox tak en b y Of f i cer Gra n db er ry re v ea l ed th ey weremade b

y de f en da n t.1-07-1309

5

De fen da nt t es t ified . He sa id t ha t o n Ap r il 10 , 20 05 , he wa s 4 9 ye ar s o ld, ha d r ec en t ly been released f

rom pri son and was

li vi ng on the streets when

he saw a "burnt-up" bui

ldi ng at 1216 Sout h 3rd Av

enue wi th garbage i

n the y ard. He went through the garbage and was picki ng up some of it whe n a wom an asked h

im what he was

doing there. He raised his han ds, said he was not do ing anything and left . D efenda nt furt her t est ifi ed t hat he did no t t hink anyone lived in the bui ldi ng an d that t he obj ects in

the yard were garbage b ecause there was f ire dam age. In r ebut t al, t he St at e intr od uce d ce rt ifi ed c op ies o f defend ant 's Ju ly 9, 20 02, felony con vi cti on f or aggra va ted un l aw f ul us e of a w ea pon an d h i s J ul y 23, 199 7, f

el ony con vi cti on f or agg ra vat ed r obbe ry. D efense co unse l object ed, claiming the p ro bat ive value o f the co nvictio ns was ou t weighe d by t heir p re judicial effect . Aft er co nsider ing ar gument s fro m bot h par t ies o n t he pr o ba t ive an d p r eju dic ial na t ur e o f t he co nvic t io ns, t he co ur t ad mit t ed t he m. The court t hen

found def

endan t guil ty of resi dentia l b urglary , stating that the crucia

l i ssue waswhethe

r the Sta te prove d be

yond a reas onabl e doubt that the b uil di ng was a dwel li ng p l ace . The c our t f oun d th at th e h om e w as n ot ab an don ed b ec au se th e f am i l y i n ten de d to retu

rn to i t, noting that the f

irst f loor contained pe

rsonal propert y w

hich was boxed and b agged and was secured by l

ocked d oo rs. On appeal, defen

dant fi rst contends the Stat e fai

le d to prove hi

m gui lty of residentia

l bur glar y beyond a re aso nable do ubt . H e claims t hat t he St at e failed t o e st ablish tha t , u nder t he st at ut e, t he building he e nt er ed w as a dwe lli ng and so his co nvictio n sho uld be r edu ced t o t he les se rinc lu de d o ffe ns e o f bu r gl ar y. Whe r e a de fen da nt ch alle ng es t he su fficie nc y o f t he ev ide nc e, t he st an da r d o f r ev iew is1-07-1309

6

whether, af

ter viewi ng the ev ide nce i n the l igh t most favorabl

e to t he State, a rat iona

l tri er of f act could ha ve f ound th e es sen tia l elem en ts of th e cri me b ey ond a reas onabl e doubt. Pe o ple v. Ha ll , 194 Ill. 2d 305 , 3 30, 743 N. E. 2d 5 21 ( 200 0) . T his st anda rd re co gnizes t he r esp ons ibil ity o f the t r ier o f fac t t o r es o lve co nflic t s in t he t es t imo ny, we igh t he ev ide nc e a nddr aw r ea so nable i nf eren ces f rom th e ev i den ce. Pe o ple v. Ca mpb ell , 146 Il l . 2d 363 , 375, 58 6 N.E.2d 1261 ( 1992) . A r ev iew ing co ur t will no t se t as ide a c r iminal c o nvic t io n u nle ss t he ev ide nc e is so un r ea so nable or im proba bl e as to rai se a reas onabl e doubt of the

def endan t's g uil t. Ha ll , 194 Ill . 2d at 330. Her e, defend ant was fou nd gu ilty of re sident ial burg lary. T o s ust ain this c onvict ion, t he ev ide nc e mu st sho w t ha t de fen da nt , kn o win gly a ndwit ho ut au t ho r it y, e nt er ed o rr ema ine d w it hin a dwell in g place, or any part o f i

t, with the in

tent t o co mm

it a fel ony or theft in i

t. 720 ILCS 5/19-3 (a) (W

est 2004). De f en da n t cl ai m s th e S tate f ai l ed to prov e H

ug o' s h ous e w as a d we lli n g p l ac e. He

as se rts that nobody was l

iv in g in the house at the tim

e of the burgl

ary an d that, based on i

ts fi re-damaged and b oarded-up co ndi

tion, the bui

ldi ng was n ot a dwelli

ng pl ace wi thin the am bi t o f the statut e. A dw el li ng pl ac e is statutor

i l y de f i ne d a s " a h

ous e, a pa rtm en t, m obi l e h ome, trai l er, or o t he rliving qu ar t er s in w hic h a t t he t ime o f t he alle ge d o ffen se t he o wn er s o ro cc up an t s a ct ua lly reside i n or in their ab sence i

ntend wi thin a reasonabl

e period of ti

me to reside." 720 ILCS 5/2- 6(b ) (We st 2004 ). The re co rd sho ws t he ho use had be en t he dw elling place o f Hug o s ince 19 82, and although it sustained considerable dam age in the f

ire, the fi rst floor o f the bui

ldi ng was stil

l i n use to store cl othe s, f urn i ture , ap pl i an ce s a nd othe r pe rs ona l be l ongi ng s. H ugo a nd Hend ers on1-07-1309

7

testifi ed that they ch

ecked on the prem

is es and thei

r bel ongin gs daily , and Hende

rson testif ie d that at the time

of the burgl

ary, sh e was plann

in g to move back i nto t he h ouse. By l ock i ng an d b oard i ng up th e f i rs t f l oor an d c he ck i ng on i ts c ond i ti on d ai l y , He nd ers on and Hugo showed concern for priv acy, sancti

ty of the h

ome an d the potential

for serious harm

as addre sse d by

the re siden

tia l bur glary statute. Peo ple v. Silva , 256 Ill . App. 3d 414, 420-21, 628 N. E. 2d 9 48 ( 199 3) . T hat Hug o a nd He nder so n re sided in the bu ilding befor e t he fire a nd co nt inu ed t o ha ve co nt ac t wit h it su pp o rt t he r ea so nable infe r en ce t ha t t he y left t he ir b elo ng ing s in the b uil di ng w i th the i nten t of return

i ng to res i de there. People v . Tor res , 327 Ill . App. 3d 1106, 1112- 13, 764

N.E.2d 1 206 (2 002). W e b el i eve the State pres en

ted suf f i cien t evi den ce to sup port t he t rial co ur t 's de t er minatio n t hat , a t t he t ime of t he bur glar y, t he ho me was not aband one d and t hat Hug o a nd He nder so n intend ed t o u se it as a re sidenc e in the near fut ur e. This sa t isfies the def i ni tion of a dwel li ng p l ace und er the statute. Silva , 25 6 I ll . A

pp . 3d at 4 20 . Th

at th e prop er ty was late r lo st t o fo re clos ur e do es no t nega t e t he inte nt of H ugo and H ende rso n t o u se t he building as a resi den ce wh en def endan t entere d. De f en da n t f ur th er as se rtsth at h e b el i ev ed th e b ui l di n g to b e a b an don ed an d th at th e S tate failed t o p ro ve beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat he kne w t he building wa s a d welling place when he entered it. But the evi

dence sh ows that t he b

uil din g was a resi

dence an d despi te bei ng dam aged fro m a fire, t he family

co nt inued t o s t or e pe rso nal belong ings in it and sec ur ed it by locking t he door s and b oarding i

t up. This was s

uff ic ie nt to support t he i

nf erence that def

endan t knew or had reason to know t hat the bui ldi ng was a dwell

in g pla ce ( People v . Quiv

er , 205 Ill . App. 3d 1067, 10 71 - 72 , 56 3 N . E . 2d 99 1 ( 19 90 ) ) , an d t ha t he en t er ed it wit h t he int en t t o co mmita t he ft . T his1-07-1309

8

was suf fi ci ent to pr ove defe

ndan t guil ty of resi dentia l b urglary bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt (720 ILCS 5/19-3 (a) (W

est 2004)). Defe ndan t next contends his 15-year sentence for residentia

l b urglary is excess iv e. He concedes that he f

aile d to rais e this

is sue i n a m ot ion to reconsider sentence b ut asks that we review the m

att er as plai

n error . 134 I ll . 2d R. 6 15(a). Al thou gh the plai

n error rule al

lows a defen dant to circumv

ent the wai

ver doctrine i

f h e can dem onstrate t hat his exces si

ve sen tence am ounted to pla i n error ( Pe opl

e v . Sm i th , 321 Il l . Ap p. 3d 52 3, 534, 7 47 N.E.2 d 1081 (2001 )), we mus t firs t de t er mine w he t he rer r o ro cc ur r ed . Wit ho ut r ev er sible er r o r , t he r e c an be no pla in error. Peop l e v . He

rron, 215 Il

l . 2d 167 , 187, 83 0 N.E.2d 467 (2 005). He r e, de fen da nt do es no t dis pu t e t ha t t he 15 - yea rt er m falls wit hin t he pe rmiss ible st at ut or y rang e. Defend ant ar gue s t hat in li ght of t he nat ur e o f the offense and his r ehabilitat ive pot entia l, the se ntence was

excess iv e. He asserts that nobody was i nj ured durin

g the off ense, that hi s cri mi nal background i s not violen t, and that t he court ignored his rehab il itativ e potential

whi ch wa s a pp aren t f rom h i s a ge , e duca ti on an d w ork hi sto ry . H e a

l so c l ai m s th e c our t f ai l ed to co nsider his bat t le with d ru g ad dict ion and t he financial co st s o f incarc er at ion. Where t he se nt ence impose d by t he t rial co ur t falls within t he st at ut or y rang e fo r t he o ffen se o f wh ich t he de fen da nt is c o nvic t ed , a r ev iew ing co ur t may d ist ur b t ha t se nt en ce o nly if the tri al court has ab

use d i ts di scre tion . People v . Jones , 168 Ill . 2d 367, 373-74, 659 N. E.2d 130 6 ( 199 5) . S uch a sent ence is exces sive whe re it is gr eat ly at var iance w ith t he sp irit a nd purpos e of

the l aw or m an i f estl y di sproportionate to the

na ture of the of f en se. People v . Stacey , 193 Il l . 2d 203 , 210, 73 7 N.E.2d 626 (2 000).1-07-1309

9

Her e, t he r eco rd sho ws t he t rial co ur t made it s sent encing d ecisio n aft er co nsider ing t he app ro pr iate sent encing fac t or s. T he co ur t not ed d efenda nt 's ext ensive cr imi nal histo ry, includ ing seve n felony co nvictio ns, five o f which wer e violent offense s. T he co ur t also not ed d efenda nt 's age , t he nat ur e o f the cr ime, his physical pr oblems a nd dr ug a ddict ion, as w ell as his edu cat ion and f am il y background. It is not ou r p re ro gat ive to re weigh t hos e fact or s and indepe ndent ly decide t hat t he sen tenc e i s ex

ces si ve . People v . Colem

an , 1 66 I ll. 2d 2 47, 261 -6 2, 652 N. E. 2d 3 22 ( 199 5) . T he re co rd est ablishes t hat t he t rial co ur t co nsider ed p ro per agg ra vat ing and mit igat ing fact or s and i m pos ed a term wi thi n th e statutor y ran ge . Un der thes e c i

rcu m sta nc es , we f i nd no a buse of di scre tion . Pe o ple v. Almo , 108 Il l . 2d 54, 7 0, 483 N .E.2d 203 (1985 ). The re wa s n o error. De fen da nt ne xt co nt en ds he is e nt it led t o a n ew t r ial be ca us e t he de laye d r ulin g o n his m oti on in limine prev

en ted h i m f rom mak i n g a n i n f orm ed an d i n tel li gen t de cisi on on wh eth er to testi f y . The State argues def

endan t has wai ve d this i ssue un

der People v . Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d 176, 186 , 52 2 N .E.2 d 11 24 ( 198 8). Bu t a c ourt m

ay rev i ew i ss ue s des pi te w ai ve r un der the p l ai

n e rror rule. Herron, 215 Il

l . 2d at 18 6-87. W

e f i rst con sider wh

ethe r an error occur

red. Herron, 215 Ill . 2d at 18 7. We deci de wh ethe r the a dm i ssi on of a def endan t's e arl i er con vi cti ons woul d be

more pr ejudicial t han pr oba t ive by using t he balanc ing t est in Montgom ery, 4 7 I ll. 2d a t 517 -1 8. An earli er convi ction of the def

endan t o r another witnes s i s adm is si ble as i mpe achm ent if le ss than 10 years hav e elapsed si

nce the date o f the conviction of the prior cr im e or r elease of the wi

tness f rom con f i ne men t " ' onl y i f the cri me, ( 1) waspun

i sh ab l e b y de ath or i m prison men t i n e xc es s of1-07-1309

10

one year ***, o r (2) involv ed dishonesty

or false statement regard less of the punish

men t unless ( 3) , in e it he rca se , t he jud ge de t er mines t ha t t he pr o ba t ive va lue o f t he ev ide nc e o f t he cr ime is substantially

out weighed b

y the danger of unf

air prejudi

ce.' " Montgom

ery, 47 Ill . 2d at 516, quoti ng R ule 609of the Fe deral

Rul es of Evi den ce, 51 F.R .D. 391 . This ap peal asks wh ethe r a trial court errs in

deferri ng the Montgom

ery test until after a def

endan t has testif

ie d. Durin g the penden

cy of thi s trial

and appeal, our supreme court addressed the proper tim in g for a Montgom

ery analysis in People v . Patrick , 233 Il l . 2d 62, 6 9, 908 N .E.2d 1 (2 009). The re sul t wa s a de term i na ti on th at " i n m ost c as es , th e tri

al j udg e wi ll

pos se ss the i nf orm ati on necess ary to conduct a Montgom ery hearin g before trial." Patrick , 233 Ill . 2d at 73. "[A] t rial co ur t 's failure t o r ule o n a mot ion in limine on the adm is si bi li ty of pri or co nvi ctions wh en i t has suff ici ent inf ormation to make a ruli

ng constitut es an abuse of discretion." Patrick , 233 Ill . 2d at 73 . " [I] n al l b ut th e m ost com pl i ca ted ca se s, a j udge

wi ll h av e en oug h i n f orm ati on b ef oretrial to we i gh the prob ati ve va l ueof ad m i tti ng the [de f en da nt' s] pri or con vi cti on a gai ns t the da ng er of unfai r prejudice to t he defen

dant." Patrick , 2 33 I ll. 2d a t 73. The sup re me co ur t in Patrick reli ed on Pe opl e v . A v erett , 38 1 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 001 , 88 6 N .E.2 d 11 23 (200 8), an appe ll atecou

rt de cisi on als o iss ue d d ur ing t he pe nd en cy o f t his c as e. "I t is a mat t er o f simp le fa irn es s t ha t co ur t s s ho uld rule on [motions in limine to bar earlier convictions] as soon as is practicabl e." A v erett , 38 1 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 101 9. " [T]h

e re f us al by a c i rcu i t cou rt to rul e dep ri

ve s a de f en da nt of i nf orm ati on needed to make an i

nf ormed and in

telli gent decision about whether to test if y." A v erett , 38 1 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 1020. A

cri m i na l def endan t's ri ght to testif

y i m pli cates a con sti tution al right. Patrick , 233 Ill . 2d at 69.1-07-1309

11

He re , n eit her t he d efe nda nt , t he p ro se cu t io n no r t he t ria l co ur t had t he b ene fit o f Patrick at tria l . Sti ll , Patrick

is appl icab le b ecause our supreme court 's decisi ons ge ne r ally a pp ly retr oact iv ely to causes pendi

ng at the tim

e they are ann ounced, in

cl udin g cases pend ing o n direct revi ew. People v . Cort es , 18 1 I ll. 2 d 2 49 , 27 6, 69 2 N . E . 2d 11 29 ( 19 98 ) . T he r e is no sho win g in the record t hat the trial

court could n

ot have conducted an ef

fecti ve Montgom

ery balanci ng test bef ore d efendan

t t estifi ed. Under t hese ci

rcumstances, the t rial

cour t's fai

lure to r ule was an ab

use of d i scre tion . Patrick , 23 3 Il

l . 2d at 7 3. S eealso People v . Hernandez , 394 Ill . App. 3d 527, 531- 32, 915 N.E.2d 856 ( 2009) (apply in g Patrick). Bu t, ev en where an err or i s of a c ons ti tutiona l magni tude , a def

en da nt i s n ot en ti tl ed to a new tri al i f the e rror washa

rm l ess beyond a reas onabl e doubt. Patrick , 2 33 I ll. 2d a t 75, citing Ch ap manv. Ca lifo rnia , 386 U .S. 18, 24 , 17 L. E d. 2d 70 5, 710- 11, 87 S . Ct. 824, 8 28 (19 67). The test i s wh

ethe r i t appea rs tha t the error c ontri

bute d to the outcom

e. Peop l e v . Pa

tters on , 217 Ill . 2d 407 , 428, 84 1 N.E.2d 889 (2 005). The fact s her e sho w t he t rial co ur t 's er ro r in de ferr ing its r uling o n defend ant 's mot ion in limine did no t co nt ribut e t o t he o ut co me. D efenda nt was t ried befo re t he benc h, no t a jur y. The pr eju dic ial e ffec t o f t he er r o ris o f les s c o nc er n w he n t he ev ide nc e o f ea r lier co nvic t io ns is pr es en t ed in abe nc h t r ial be ca us e it is p r es ume d t he t r ial c o ur t will c o nsid er o nly p r o pe r ly adm i tted evi den

ce. People v . Eubanks , 279 Il l . Ap p. 3d 94 9, 958, 6 65 N.E.2 d 464 ( 1996) . Patrick wa s a j ury trial where the trial cou rt' s def erred de cisi on prev en ted de f ense cou ns el f rom ei ther tell in g the jury that defenda

nt would testif

y or antici pator il y di sclosin g the earli er conv i cti ons to less en

the prej udicial

ef f ect. Patrick , 2 33 I ll. 2d a t 75. The er ro r in Patrick was1-07-1309

12

not ha rm l ess be caus e the

def endan t was s ubs tantial l y prej udiced. Patrick , 233 Ill . 2d at 75. T his c as e is dis t ing uis hable fr o m Patrick beca use of d iff

er ing t heo ries o f defense . T he defend ant in Patrick

rel i ed on a the ory of s elf -def en se. Patrick , 23 3 Il

l . 2d at 7 5. " The i

m pact of t he co nvictio ns o n Pat rick 's cr edibility is clear fr om t he St at e's fo cus ed a nd r epe at ed a rg ument urging the jury

not t o believe a three-t im e convicted fel

on." Patrick , 233 Ill . 2d at 75-76. Here, def endan t's d ecision to testi f

y and hi s cre di bi li ty as a wi tnes s we re not critic al

to hi s pri mary defen se: that the Stat e fai

le d to prove the bui

ldi ng was a dwell

in g pla ce. Defen

se counsel ex tensi ve l y cros s- exam

i ne d H en ders on a nd Hugo on the ab an doned an d b urn ed -out c ond

i ti on of the bui ldi ng an d spent the enti

re closi ng argum ent reiteratin

g the assertion that the bui ldi ng was not a dw el li ng pl ac e u nd er th e statute . De f

en da nt c l ai med tha t he en tere d on l y the yard an d n ot the bui ldi ng, but thi s testim

ony was ref

uted by Henderson an

d Hugo, who placed def

endan t ins ide the h ouse, a nd b y the f i nge rpri nt ev i den ce on i tem s take n f rom th e house. In light of t he abo ve, we c onc lude t he co ur t 's er ro r in de ferr ing its r uling o n defend ant 's m oti on in limine until

after he testi fi

ed was ha rml ess b ey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. Accord Pe o ple v. W ea the rspoon , 394 Ill . App. 3d 839, 857-58, 915 N.E .2d 761 (2009) (distin guis hi ng Patrick and People v . Hogan , 3 88 I ll. App. 3d 8 85, 904 N. E. 2d 1 036 (2 009 ) ( re ver sing o n Patrick gr ou nds t he de fendant 's co nvictio ns aft er t rial co ur t defer re d it s ru ling on mo t ion in limine )). Defend ant next ar gue s t hat re gar dless o f ou r c onc lusion o n t he t imi ng o f the t rial co ur t 's ru ling on t he mot ion in limine , we m ust f i nd th e tri al court erred

i n f i ndi ng th e con vi cti ons m ore probative than

prejudi ci al . He cla

im s the trial court erred in

conductin

g the Montgom

ery ba l an ci ng tes t an d all owi ng the i ntr oduc ti on of hi s 2 002 con vi cti on f or aggra va ted un l aw f ul us e of1-07-1309

13

a we apo n and his 1 997 co nvictio n for agg ra vat ed r obbe ry. T he St at e r eplies t hat defend ant wa ive d t his is su e b y failing t o r ais e it in amo t io n fo rne w t r ial. We r ev iew t he iss ue fo rpla in error. People v . Mil

li gan , 327 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 26 4, 267, 7 64 N.E.2 d 555 (2002) . A wi tness's credibil ity ma y be i mpe ached b

y a n earl ie r conviction if: the cri

me was punis habl e by death o r im

prisonm ent in ex cess of one year or inv

olved di shonesty or fal se sta tem en t reg ard l es s of the pun i sh men t; l es s th an 10 y ea rsha ve el ap se d s i nc e the dateof co nvictio n or t he r elease of t he wit ness fr om co nfinement, whicheve r is lat er ; and t he pr oba t ive va l ue of adm i ttin g the earl i er con vi cti ons outwe i ghs

the danger of

unf ai r prej udice. Peo ple v. A tki ns on , 186 Il

l . 2d 450 , 456, 71 3 N.E.2d 532 (1 999). Th

i s l ast f actor di re cts th e tr i al cou rt to wei gh th e prob ati ve va l ue of the c onv i cti ons a gai nst the da nge r of u nf ai r prej udice. A

tki ns on , 186 Ill . 2d at 45 6. The

tria l court's deci sion i s rev i ewed f or an a bus e of di scre tion . Montgom

ery, 47 Ill . 2d at 518. The re co rd sho ws t he co ur t co nduc t ed a pr op er balancing t est and a dher ed t o t he Montgom ery rule i n f i ndi ng th e con vi cti ons a dm i ssi bl e f or im peac hm en t purpose s. A

tki ns on , 186 I ll. 2 d a t 46 3. T his w as a b en ch t r ial, wh er e t he r e is a p r es ump t io n t ha t t he co ur t co nsid er ed o nly competent evi

dence ( Eubanks , 279 I ll . App. 3d at 959). We f in d no plai n error to excuse defen dant’s f orfei ture o f this i ssue. 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. J. GO RDON

and Mc BRID E, JJ., c oncu r.