Court Opinion

ID: 9399253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 16:05:34.73762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.833481
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (3d) 220191

                                  Opinion filed June 2, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                    IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                              THIRD DISTRICT

                                                       2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                         )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                          )      of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
                                                         )      La Salle County, Illinois,
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                         )
                                                         )      Appeal No. 3-22-0191
             v.                                          )      Circuit No. 21-CF-395
                                                         )
      DARION COLEMAN,                                    )      Honorable
                                                         )      Cynthia M. Raccuglia,
             Defendant-Appellant.                        )      Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
            Justices McDade and Davenport concurred in the judgment and opinion.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 OPINION

¶1          Defendant, Darion Coleman, appeals his conviction for aggravated vehicular hijacking (720

     ILCS 5/18-4 (West 2020)), arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove the aggravating factor

     that a 15-year-old was a passenger in the stolen vehicle at the time of the offense. The State

     responds that it has met its burden. We affirm.

¶2                                          I. BACKGROUND

¶3          On November 8, 2021, defendant was charged by information with aggravated vehicular

     hijacking, alleging he knowingly took a motor vehicle by use of force with a passenger under 16
     years of age in the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offense. The matter proceeded to a

     jury trial on March 14, 2022.

¶4          At trial, the State presented evidence that defendant was pulled over, arrested, and issued

     various traffic citations for speeding, reckless driving, and driving on a suspended license the day of

     the incident. A video recording of the traffic stop depicted defendant wearing a white hooded

     sweatshirt with a red Nike decal across the chest and red lettering imprinted on the arm. The

     arresting officer transported defendant to police headquarters for processing. Thereafter, at around 7

     p.m., police dropped him off at the Super 8 hotel in Peru, Illinois. Only two buildings separate the

     hotel and the Clock Tower Shell gas station.

¶5          Violet Sobin, a resident of El Paso, Illinois, testified that on November 6, 2021, she traveled

     to La Salle County to visit her mother and her brother, Dawson. To make the trip, Violet borrowed

     her boyfriend’s mother’s blue Nissan Rogue. That evening, Violet picked up Dawson and their

     mutual friend Aiden Steele in Ladd, Illinois. Together, they drove in the Nissan through Peru’s

     commercial area. After Violet cashed a check at the nearby Walmart, they ventured over to Taco

     Bell and purchased food before driving to the Clock Tower Shell gas station. Violet drove with

     Aiden in the front passenger seat and Dawson seated behind Aiden. Violet pulled into pump 6 at the

     Shell gas station, and Dawson left to pay inside. When Dawson returned to the vehicle, he began

     asking Violet questions on how to pump the gas. At this time, a man ran to the driver’s side of the

     Nissan, opened the door, and instructed Violet and her passengers to get out of the car, claiming the

     gas station was going to get “shot up.” The man pulled Violet out of the driver’s seat. Violet

     testified Aiden and Dawson were out of the car at the time. The man then sat down and closed the

     door, but Violet opened the door in an attempt to stop him from stealing the Nissan. A brief scuffle

     between Violet and the man ensued. As the man drove away, Violet fell, and her foot was run over.

                                                        2
¶6            The State introduced surveillance footage from the gas station. The footage reveals the

       hijacker was a man in a white hooded sweatshirt with a red Nike decal across the chest and red

       lettering imprinted on the arm. After viewing the video, Violet concluded her testimony by

       identifying defendant as the man who took the vehicle.

¶7            Dawson and Aiden’s testimony corroborated Violet’s. Dawson testified that, after paying for

       gas and returning to the car, he overheard someone say “get out of the car. They’re about to shoot

       this place.” Aiden testified he was 15 years old on November 6, 2021. He also identified defendant

       as the man who took the vehicle.

¶8            When the dust settled, three items remained at the scene of the crime: a carton of cigarettes,

       a half-eaten Taco Bell taco, and a paper copy of defendant’s traffic citations. Peru Police

       Department officer Hunter Wright testified that during the evening of November 6, 2021, he was

       dispatched to the Clock Tower Shell gas station. Initially, he tended to Violet until the ambulance

       arrived. Officer Wright then took photographs near pump 6 that revealed defendant’s driving

       citations conveniently placed next to the half-eaten Taco Bell taco.

¶9            After the State rested, defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing there was a lack of

       evidence and identification to support his conviction based on the testimony. The court denied the

       motion and indicated defendant’s contentions were premised on questions of fact and credibility

       and, “when there’s issues of credibility, they belong to the jury.” The jury found him guilty of the

       offense of aggravated vehicular hijacking.

¶ 10          On April 1, 2022, defendant filed a motion for a new trial arguing, inter alia, that the State

       failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court heard arguments on May 12, 2022,

       and entered an order denying his motion for a new trial. That same day, the court sentenced

                                                         3
       defendant to a mandatory Class X felony sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment based on his criminal

       record and lack of remorse and mitigating factors.

¶ 11          Defendant timely appealed.

¶ 12                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13          Upon 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 that the essential elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See

       People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319

       (1979)).

¶ 14          The core issue in this case is whether Aiden, Violet’s 15-year-old passenger, was a

       passenger at the time defendant committed the vehicular hijacking offense. The fundamental

       question of when defendant has committed the underlying crime raises issues of fact and statutory

       interpretation. The goal of a court’s statutory interpretation analysis is to “ascertain and give effect

       to the legislature’s intent,” and to best accomplish this goal, we look to the “plain and ordinary

       meaning” of the statutory language. Dew-Becker v. Wu, 2020 IL 124472, ¶ 12. “A person commits

       vehicular hijacking when he or she knowingly takes a motor vehicle from the person or the

       immediate presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force.” 720

       ILCS 5/18-3(a) (West 2020). Vehicular hijacking is a Class 1 felony. Id. § 18-3(b). To enhance a

       defendant’s vehicular hijacking charge to an aggravated offense, the State must prove the presence

       of an aggravating factor during the commission of the crime. See id. § 18-4(a). Here, defendant was

       charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking because Aiden, as a 15-year-old passenger, satisfied

       the aggravating factor that “a person under 16 years of age [was] a passenger in the motor vehicle at

                                                           4
       the time of the offense.” Id. § 18-4(a)(2). Aggravated vehicular hijacking is a Class X felony. Id.

       § 18-4(b).

¶ 15          On appeal, defendant argues that Aiden was out of the vehicle by the time he gained control.

       He contends that the actus reus of vehicular hijacking is taking control of a vehicle. Therefore, the

       phrase “at the time of the offense” in section 18-4(a)(2) is operative; it precludes his aggravated

       vehicular hijacking conviction because he had not yet taken control of the car while Aiden was a

       passenger. See id. § 18-4(a)(2). In response, the State claims that the record paints a different

       picture. It argues that Violet’s forceful removal from the vehicle was contemporaneous with Aiden

       getting out of the vehicle. According to the State, when weighing the evidence in its favor, Aiden

       remained a passenger until the defendant took the vehicle by force.

¶ 16          Briefly, we note that a defendant may be found guilty of vehicular hijacking “by threatening

       the imminent use of force.” Id. § 18-3(a). However, it is unnecessary to determine whether

       defendant’s instruction to “get out of the car”because “[t]hey’re about to shoot this place” arose to a

       threat. The charging instrument makes plain that defendant was charged for knowingly taking the

       Nissan from Violet “by the use of force” while Aiden remained in the vehicle.

¶ 17          “[T]he act of vehicular hijacking occurs when the offender takes a vehicle from ‘another.’ ”

       People v. Jackson, 2016 IL App (1st) 133823, ¶ 48. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “take” as “[t]o

       obtain possession or control, whether legally or illegally.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

       To “take” may similarly mean “to get into one’s hands or into one’s possession, power, or control:

       such as *** to seize or capture physically.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://merriam-

       webster.com/dictionary/take (last visited May 26, 2023) [https://perma.cc/H74M-AWLP].

¶ 18          Defendant argues he did not gain physical control over the vehicle in question until Aiden

       left the passenger seat and was standing outside. Stated differently, in defendant’s view, he did not

                                                          5
       take the vehicle while the aggravating factor supporting his conviction existed. Such a restrictive

       view of “taking” in the context of aggravated vehicular hijacking was expressly rebuked by our

       supreme court in People v. Reese, 2017 IL 120011, ¶¶ 35, 39. In Reese, the court held that the

       offense of vehicular hijacking encompasses more than the limited situation where a driver is

       dispossessed and the defendant takes actual physical possession of a vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 1, 40. Rather,

       the offense also criminalizes “taking control of a vehicle by force or threat of force, including when

       the victim remains inside the vehicle.” Id. ¶ 42.

¶ 19          Here, the commission of the vehicular hijacking occurred within a 30-second timeframe.

       The surveillance footage shows defendant running up to the Nissan, which was parked at pump 6 at

       the Clock Tower Shell gas station. He opened the driver’s side door while Aiden and Violet were

       seated in the vehicle. As defendant reached into the vehicle and toward Violet, Aiden opened the

       passenger door. Defendant then placed his right hand on Violet’s back, guided her out of the

       driver’s seat, and sat down. Violet and Aiden exited the vehicle simultaneously. Defendant closed

       the driver’s side door, but Violet immediately reopened the door and began pulling at his arm. In the

       process of speeding off, defendant ran over Violet’s foot.

¶ 20          While it is true that the evidence reflects no passengers were inside the vehicle by the time

       defendant sped off, this is not the determinative time frame for when the offense commenced.

       Rather, we find, in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found

       defendant took possession or control of the vehicle through the physical action of removing Violet

       as the driver. Defendant used force to take the vehicle through reaching into the driver’s side and,

       with his right arm, guiding her out of the vehicle. This action occurred while Aiden remained seated

       in the vehicle as a passenger. Accordingly, we find in viewing the evidence most favorable to the

       State that the aggravating factor existed at the time of the offense.

                                                           6
¶ 21                                  III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22   The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed.

¶ 23   Affirmed.

                                                 7
                     People v. Coleman, 2023 IL App (3d) 220191

Decision Under Review:     Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle County, No. 21-CF-
                           395; the Hon. Cynthia M. Raccuglia, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                  James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Emily A. Brandon, of
for                        State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                  Joseph Navarro, State’s Attorney, of Ottawa (Patrick Delfino,
for                        Thomas D. Arado, and Jessica A. Theodoratos, of State’s
Appellee:                  Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the
                           People.

                                           8