People v. Washington


2023 IL App (1st) 210987-U THIRD DIVISION June 7, 2023 No. 1-21-0987 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 14 CR 11351 ) TYNEIL WASHINGTON, ) ) Honorable Diana L. Kenworthy, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. JUSTICE D.B. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Burke concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court’s error in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements based upon his purported invocation of his right to remain silent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance for failure to modify a pattern jury instruction. Affirmed. ¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Tyneil Washington was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 48 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress his inculpatory statements based upon his invocation of his right to remain silent, and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failure to modify a pattern jury instruction. We affirm. No. 1-21-0987 ¶3 BACKGROUND ¶4 The State charged defendant with multiple counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated unlawful restraint in connection with the shooting death of Herbert Goode. The State later nol-prossed all but three counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery. ¶5 Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements ¶6 Before trial, defendant moved to suppress certain statements that he made to the police. Among other things, defendant claimed that, during his interrogation at around 5:21 p.m. on May 29, 2014, he invoked his right to remain silent, but police continued to interrogate him. Defendant stated that, at around 8:24 p.m. on that same date, he asked to call his mother so that she could hire an attorney to represent him during the interrogation, but police also denied his request. Defendant added then, when his attorney arrived at the police station, the attorney was not brought to see him prior to the end of the interrogation. Defendant concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, his statements were involuntarily made and in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Defendant asked the court to suppress his inculpatory statements. ¶7 At the hearing on his motion to suppress, the trial court granted the State’s request to admit and publish three exhibits (State’s exhibits 1A, 1B, and 1C) comprising the videorecording of defendant’s interview with the police. The following evidence was then presented at the hearing. ¶8 Chicago police detective Timothy Cerven testified that he and his partner, Detective Dale Potter, interviewed defendant on May 29, 2014, and that the interview had been videorecorded. Cerven stated that he was present at …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals