{ "id": 5083151, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD TANGWALL, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tangwall", "decision_date": "1988-07-13", "docket_number": "No. 2\u201487\u20140890", "first_page": "487", "last_page": "492", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "172 Ill. App. 3d 487" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "507 N.E.2d 1192", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 Ill. App. 3d 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3464522 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/155/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Cal. Rptr. 826", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "828" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 Cal. App. 2d 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2223501 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/261/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Cal. Rptr. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Cal. App. 3d 1032", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2347990 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1035" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/20/1032-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 U.S. 464", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3911673 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467" }, { "page": "971" }, { "page": "390" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/281/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 U.S. 43", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 345076 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" }, { "page": "665" }, { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/201/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 A.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 7951855 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/444/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "427 N.E.2d 1382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1384" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 3d 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3087605 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/101/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 N.E.2d 1003", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1004" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 Ill. App. 3d 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3502916 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/150/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 N.E.2d 1201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1204" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3506720 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/156/0076-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 637, "char_count": 11553, "ocr_confidence": 0.776, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15522854807365216 }, "sha256": "043a1de8e81e0eef9f1ddb01fc3c31a867138556b0c50e414afb1c3fd4b7d758", "simhash": "1:b12e5e54494352e9", "word_count": 1912 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:18.987882+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD TANGWALL, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE NASH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Donald Tangwall, was convicted of eavesdropping (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 14 \u2014 2(a)) after a jury trial in the circuit court of Lee County and was sentenced to 18 months\u2019 probation, 15 hours of community service, a fine, and court costs. On appeal, he contends that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and that his sixth amendment right to counsel was violated when he was not permitted to have a nonattomey represent him at trial. We affirm.\nOn August 27, 1986, defendant was arrested for eavesdropping for allegedly using a tape recorder to record a conversation between Lee County State\u2019s Attorney Eugene Stockton and Bureau County Circuit Court Judge C. Howard Wampler without their consent.\nAt trial, State\u2019s Attorney Stockton testified that on April 15, 1986, he accompanied the sheriff of Lee County to Kenneth Leffelman\u2019s farm to assist the sheriff in serving a court order authorizing the seizure of certain pieces of farm machinery. After the sheriff and Stockton arrived, the Leffelmans produced a document indicating that the Leffelmans had filed a bankruptcy petition and asked Stockton to call Judge Wampler, who had issued the order. Stockton did so and was advised by Wampler to seize the property despite the bankruptcy petition because the Leffelmans could not be trusted. At that point, Terry Leffelman, who was listening to the conversation on another extension, began to argue with Judge Wampler. The judge thereupon instructed Stockton to call him from someplace other than the Leffelman farm. Stockton also testified that he did not consent to anyone listening to the telephone conversation.\nJudge C. Howard Wampler, a circuit court judge in Bureau County, testified that he had a telephone conversation with Eugene Stockton concerning the Leffelmans\u2019 purported bankruptcy stay and that he became angry when he discovered that Terry Leffelman was listening to the conversation. Judge Wampler also testified that he did not consent to anyone listening to his conversation with Stockton.\nJean Delhotal, a certified court reporter for Lee County, testified that she was the court reporter who recorded Donald Tangwall\u2019s testimony as a witness during a criminal trial involving Terrence Leffelman. Delhotal stated that a transcript of Tangwall\u2019s testimony, which was marked as an exhibit, was accurate, and it was admitted into evidence.\nThe final witness for the State was Judge John Payne, who presided at Terrence Leffelman\u2019s criminal trial. Judge Payne stated that Donald Tangwall testified at Terrence Leffelman\u2019s trial, and that the transcript admitted in evidence was a true and accurate report of his testimony. Judge Payne then read the following questions and answers from Donald Tangwall\u2019s testimony:\n\u201c \u2018Yes. I\u2019ll preface these with answer and question. The answers are being given on this page by Mr. Tangwall, and the questions are by Miss Walker, who was the prosecutor.\u2019 Answer: \u2018Was I present on the property at that time. Yes, I was.\u2019 Question: \u2018And did you see Sheriff Nehring?\u2019 Answer: \u2018No, I did not.\u2019 Question: \u2018Now you don\u2019t recall having seen him at all through the day?\u2019 Answer: \u2018None whatsoever, no.\u2019 Question: \u2018Where were you when this purported incident involving the tool shed and Mr. Leffelman and the sheriff took place?\u2019 Answer: T was in the basement tape recording conversations between Mr. Wampler, the attorney at Bureau County, the State\u2019s Attorney of this county, and Mr. Terry Leffelman.\u2019 Question: \u2018Was that with the permission of any of those people?\u2019 Answer: \u2018Permission of what people?\u2019 Question: \u2018Any of the people involved in that conversation you just described.\u2019 Answer: \u2018No, but of course it\u2019s not offered as evidence right now.\u2019 Question: \u2018All right. Thank you. You say there was a Mr. Wampler?\u2019 Answer: \u2018C. Howard Wampler I believe.\u2019 Question: \u2018Is that by some chance a judge of Bureau County?\u2019 Answer: \u2018That\u2019s who it is; correct.\u2019 Question: \u2018You were tape recording conversations involving Judge Wampler, State\u2019s Attorney of Lee County\u2019 \u2014 and then there\u2019s an interrupted answer. Answer: \u2018State\u2019s Attorney Stockton and Mr. Nehring and Mr. Terry Leffelman. That\u2019s correct.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe State concluded its case in chief by asking the court to take judicial notice that a tape recorder is an eavesdropping device. Defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict was denied, and he opened his case by calling Kenneth Leffelman as a witness.\nLeffelman testified that on the day in question, Donald Tangwall called him several times from St. Petersburg, Florida. He stated that he did not know anyone else who lived in St. Petersburg and that Donald Tangwall was not present when the telephone conversation between Judge Wampler and Eugene Stockton took place.\nThe final defense witness was Terry Leffelman, who testified that on April 15, 1986, Donald Tangwall was in Florida and called the Leffelman home from St. Petersburg. He also stated that there were no tape recording devices in the Leffelman home. On cross-examination Terry acknowledged that he knew other people who lived in St. Petersburg.\nIn rebuttal, the State called Patsy Heckman, the court reporter who had recorded defendant\u2019s preliminary hearing. She read the defendant\u2019s questioning of Nancy Leffelman, where he stated that he was in the house, that there was a recording device on the telephone, and that he was listening to, but not recording, the conversation between Eugene Stockton and Judge Wampler.\nThe jury returned a guilty verdict and, after defendant\u2019s post-trial motion was denied, he has appealed.\nBefore turning to the merits of the defendant\u2019s contentions, we note that his brief does not contain an adequate statement of facts, as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(6) (113 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(6)). In addition, defendant\u2019s arguments are, for the most part, incoherent, with numerous citations to cases entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand. While we have the authority to dismiss an appeal for violation of Supreme Court rules, we have the discretion to consider the merits of the appeal (Lindenmier v. City of Rockford (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 76, 79, 508 N.E.2d 1201, 1204) and will do so here.\nThe first issue raised by the defendant is that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over his person. While much of defendant\u2019s argument on this point is gibberish, the gist of his argument seems to be that he cannot be prosecuted by the State of Illinois because there is no \u201cnexus\u201d connecting him to Illinois.\nIn order to try an accused, the court must have subject matter and personal jurisdiction. (People v. Martinez (1986), 150 Ill. App. 3d 516, 517, 501 N.E.2d 1003, 1004; People v. McCarty (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 355, 357, 427 N.E.2d 1382, 1384.) While defendant cites many cases he suggests support his argument that Illinois courts have no power over him, closer scrutiny reveals that he leaves out words from quotations, quotes phrases from cases out of context, and misinterprets the actual holding of the cases. For example, defendant cites Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. App. 1981), 444 A.2d 1, for the proposition that \u201cno general or special nexus exists [sic] between the individual (e.g., me) and the state.\u201d In reality, Warren concerned a lawsuit against the District of Columbia for failure to provide adequate police protection. The Warren court\u2019s only language resembling defendant\u2019s proposition states: \u201cThe duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.\u201d (Warren, 444 A.2d at 3.) Defendant also quotes Hale v. Henkel (1906), 201 U.S. 43, 50 L. Ed. 652, 26 S. Ct. 370, as stating: \u201cThe individual owes nothing to the State for he receives nothing thereform [sic].\u201d Not only does this misquote Hale, but the quote is taken out of context. The actual quote in context is as follows:\n\u201cHe owes no duty to the state or his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of this life and property.\u201d Hale, 201 U.S. at 74, 50 L. Ed. at 665, 26 S. Ct. at 379.\nDefendant also argues that courts are not \u201ccourts\u201d in the regular sense of the word, but merely extensions of administrative agencies. In support of this contention, defendant refers this court to Federal Radio Comm\u2019n v. General Electric Co. (1930), 281 U.S. 464, 74 L. Ed. 969, 50 S. Ct. 389. The Supreme Court did not there find that all courts were merely extensions of administrative bodies, but instead held that it did not have jurisdiction to review that particular case because the court of appeals of the District of Columbia was not acting judicially, but as a part of an administrative agency when it reviewed Radio Commission licensing decisions. Federal Radio Comm\u2019n, 281 U.S. at 467, 74 L. Ed. at 971, 50 S. Ct. at 390.\nFinally, defendant cites California v. Farley (1971), 20 Cal. App. 3d 1032, 98 Cal. Rptr. 89, for the proposition that minor offenses cannot call the State\u2019s police power into action, and no reasonable act of a person can, by itself, create jurisdiction over the person. Farley and the case to which it refers, People v. Wohlleben (1968), 261 Cal. App. 2d 461, 67 Cal. Rptr. 826, actually stand for the proposition that, in California, minor traffic arrests must be made pursuant to the Vehicle Code, not the Penal Code. Farley, 20 Cal. App. 3d at 1035, 98 Cal. Rptr. at 91; Wohlleben, 261 Cal. App. 2d at 463, 67 Cal. Rptr. at 828.\nSection 1 \u2014 5(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1 \u2014 5(a)(1)) states that a person is subject to prosecution in Illinois if he commits an offense within the State. Defendant\u2019s testimony at Terry Leffelman\u2019s trial establishes that he was in Illinois at the time of the offense and that the offense was committed in Illinois. Tangwall\u2019s presence and conduct create the \u201cnexus\u201d with the State of Illinois required by law, and the circuit court had jurisdiction over him in trial.\nDefendant also contends that he was denied his sixth amendment right to counsel because the court would not allow him to be represented by a nonattorney. In People v. Schwarz (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 41, 507 N.E.2d 1192, we recently held that a defendant is not entitled to be represented by a nonattorney at trial. In this case, defendant was permitted to have a nonattorney sit with him and advise him during the trial, and Terry Leffelman was present at and spoke during the instruction conference. In that the defendant has not given us any rationale for overruling Schwarz, we follow its reasoning and find that defendant\u2019s sixth amendment right to counsel was not violated.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDUNN and INGLIS, JJ., concur.\nJOn the State\u2019s request, we have examined defendant\u2019s brief in Schwarz and note that defendant\u2019s argument in the present case is virtually identical to the argument in the Schwarz brief.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE NASH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Donald Tangwall, of Sublette, appellant pro se.", "Eugene L. Stockton, State\u2019s Attorney, of Dixon (William L. Browers and Lawrence M. Bauer, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD TANGWALL, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201487\u20140890\nOpinion filed July 13, 1988.\nDonald Tangwall, of Sublette, appellant pro se.\nEugene L. Stockton, State\u2019s Attorney, of Dixon (William L. Browers and Lawrence M. Bauer, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0487-01", "first_page_order": 509, "last_page_order": 514 }