Court Opinion

ID: 9353091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 21:03:15.435674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:30.691611
License: Public Domain

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).

                                       2023 IL App (3d) 200095-U

                                 Order filed January 10, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                           THIRD DISTRICT

                                                  2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                     )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                      )      of the 14th Judicial Circuit,
                                                     )      Henry County, Illinois,
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                     )
                                                     )      Appeal No. 3-20-0095
             v.                                      )      Circuit No. 18-CM-449
                                                     )
      JEFFREY A. MOFFITT,                            )      Honorable
                                                     )      Terence M. Patton,
             Defendant-Appellant.                    )      Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Albrecht and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                               ORDER

¶1          Held: The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant received notice and had
                  knowledge that the emergency order of protection was extended.

¶2          Defendant, Jeffrey A. Moffitt, was convicted of two counts of violating an order of

     protection (OP) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4 (West 2018)). Defendant argues the State failed to prove

     beyond a reasonable doubt that he received notice or had knowledge that the emergency OP was

     extended. We affirm.
¶3                                           I. BACKGROUND

¶4          On November 19, 2018, the court issued an emergency OP which required defendant to

     refrain from contacting Jennifer Davis by written notes. The terms of the emergency OP were

     effective until December 10, 2018. A hearing on the entry of a plenary/interim OP was set for the

     same day. Defendant was served with the emergency OP.

¶5          On December 10, 2018, defendant appeared as a self-represented litigant for the hearing

     regarding the emergency OP. The emergency OP was extended. According to the docket entry,

     defendant was served with an order extending the emergency OP in open court.

¶6          On December 27, 2018, defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful violation of

     an OP for contacting Davis by placing two notes on the windshield of her car.

¶7          At trial, Davis, her daughter Abigail Davis, and her father Michael L. Davis each testified

     that they observed defendant place two notes on Jennifer Davis’s car immediately after the

     December 10, court proceedings extending the emergency OP. Davis testified that she shared this

     observation with her lawyer who informed bailiff Bruce Mahaffey. Mahaffey testified that he

     retrieved the two notes from the windshield of Davis’s car. Both notes were admitted into evidence.

     In one of the notes, defendant apologized to the court for breaking the no contact rule. Additionally,

     the emergency OP, the extension order, and a copy of the docket entries for both court proceedings

     were admitted into evidence. Defendant testified that he never received the order extending the

     emergency OP.

¶8          Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating an OP and sentenced to 24 months of

     probation and 180 days in jail on both counts to be served concurrently. Defendant filed a motion

     to reconsider sentence which the court denied. Defendant appeals.

¶9                                              II. ANALYSIS

                                                       2
¶ 10          Defendant argues that the State failed to prove him guilty of violating the extended

       emergency OP beyond a reasonable doubt because it failed to show he had notice of the extension

       of the order or otherwise obtained knowledge that the emergency OP had been extended.

¶ 11          When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the relevant

       question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

       rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

       doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson

       v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “[I]n weighing evidence, the trier of fact is not required to

       disregard inferences which flow normally from the evidence before it, nor need it search out all

       possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of reasonable doubt.”

       People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009). “When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency

       of the evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry the defendant.” Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at

       261. Thus, “the reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of

       the prosecution.” People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). “A conviction will be

       reversed only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that it justifies

       a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67. We apply

       this standard of review “regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.” People v.

       Norris, 399 Ill. App. 3d 525, 531 (2010).

¶ 12          A person violates an OP when they knowingly commit an act prohibited by a court in an

       OP. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.4 (West 2018). The violation occurs after the offender has acquired actual

       knowledge of the contents of the order. Id. “[K]nowledge is the awareness of the existence of facts

       that make a defendant’s conduct unlawful.” People v. Hinton, 402 Ill. App. 3d 181, 184 (2010).

       Actual knowledge is often shown by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 185. “Circumstantial evidence

                                                         3
       is proof of facts or circumstances that give rise to reasonable inferences of other facts that tend to

       establish guilt or innocence of the defendant.” People v. Saxon, 374 Ill. App. 3d 409, 417 (2007).

       “ ‘An inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn by considering other facts.’ ”

       Id. at 416 (quoting People v. Funches, 212 Ill. 2d 334, 340 (2004)).

¶ 13          Allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution (see, Cunningham, 212 Ill.

       2d at 280), the record shows that defendant was served a copy of the initial emergency OP.

       Thereafter, defendant was present in court when the initial emergency OP was extended and was

       served in court with a copy of the order extending the emergency OP. Cf. Hinton, 402 Ill. App. 3d

       at 184 (the defendant was in jail on the date of the hearing and the State did not show that he was

       brought to court for the hearing or that he was later served with notice of the order). One of

       defendant’s notes established his knowledge of the emergency OP, as he apologized to the court

       for breaking the no contact order. Therefore, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that

       defendant had knowledge that the emergency OP was extended.

¶ 14                                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 15          The judgment of the circuit court of Henry County is affirmed.

¶ 16          Affirmed.

                                                         4