{ "id": 5407677, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Williams, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Williams", "decision_date": "1975-04-24", "docket_number": "No. 74-284", "first_page": "402", "last_page": "405", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 402" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "324 N.E.2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill.App.3d 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2784357 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/26/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 N.E.2d 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill.App.3d 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5308666 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/24/0605-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 N.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill.2d 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2887980 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 N.E.2d 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill.App.3d 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2863433 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/27/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2891213 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 N.E.2d 680", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill.App.3d 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2504998 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/23/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 N.E.2d 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill.2d 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2862345 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 N.E.2d 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Ill.App.3d 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2752219 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/2/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 N.E.2d 788", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill.App.3d 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2614602, 2608708 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/18/0489-02", "/ill-app-3d/18/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 N.E.2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Ill.App.3d 738", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2836651 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/3/0738-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 509, "char_count": 8443, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9650302379722272e-07, "percentile": 0.738588813479087 }, "sha256": "2a722522da31caee88658f442c8208ad2e07108a4292b17d15f06856329c2080", "simhash": "1:09c33da4a0c3d815", "word_count": 1373 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.902616+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. Michael Williams, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE KARNS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant-appellant, Michael Williams, was convicted of burglary after a jury trial in Jefferson County and sentenced to serve from 2 to 6 years. On appeal he contends that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that the prosecutor made improper and prejudicial remarks in closing argument; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the sentence imposed was excessive.\nThe testimony most damaging to defendant came from Isaiah White, Jr., defendant\u2019s 14-year-old co-participant in the crime, testifying under a grant of total immunity from prosecution. White testified that he and defendant went to Johnson\u2019s Market in Mt. Vernon early in the morning of January 18, 1974. Defendant threw a brick through a front window; then, White entered the building and removed several pounds of assorted meats. Both men returned to White\u2019s house and ate part of the meat. They returned to Johnson\u2019s Market intending to take more merchandise but were interrupted by the police. White escaped but was later arrested at his home. Defendant ran but was apprehended by the police a few minutes later. Two police officers corroborated White\u2019s testimony about the capture. The owner of the store itemized the merchandise taken and stated that meat recovered by the police from White was similar to that taken. There was no evidence presented that defendant was inside the store at any time. Defendant was indicted in the language of the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 19-1) and no instruction on accountability as defined in section 5-2 of the Criminal Code was tendered or given.\nDefendant first contends that since he was tried as a principal and the jury was not instructed as to the law of accountability there was not sufficient evidence to find that he \u201centered\u201d the building. The State\u2019s theory at trial was that defendant entered the building when he threw the brick through the window. The prosecutor six times told this to the jury in final argument. Defendant's objection to the first of these statements was overruled. Defendant specifically argued that accountability was not an issue in the case and that the throwing of the brick was not an \u201centry.\u201d The prosecutor\u2019s statements to the jury were in error. Defendant\u2019s use of the brick only to break the window was not an \u201centry.\u201d (People v. Davis, 3 Ill.App.3d 738, 279 N.E.2d 179 (1972).) There was no evidence that defendant was inside the building or that he placed any object or part of his body in the building. Counsel should refrain from \u201cinstructing\u201d the juiy, especiaHy on a point not contained in the court\u2019s charge to the jury.\nWe do not believe, however, that the prosecutor\u2019s misstatement of the law warrants reversal. Defendant was charged, tried, and convicted as a principal. The verdict form did not specify whether defendant entered the building or was guilty of burglary on the theory of accountability. There is no requirement that a defendant be charged with a crime in the language of accountability. It is always proper to charge one as a principal even though the proof is that he is an accessory who aided or abetted the commission of the crime. (People v. Fowler, 18 Ill.App.3d 489, 309 N.E.2d 788 (1974); People v. Heuton, 2 Ill.App.3d 427, 276 N.E.2d 8 (1971).) Accountability (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 5 \u2014 1 et seq.) is not an offense in itself but merely an alternative to the nature of the proof required to convict for a substantive offense. (People v. Heuton.) There can be no doubt that defendant was accountable for the acts of White, that he aided White in the commission of the offense, and that he reaped the benefits of the crime. This undisputed evidence establishes overwhelmingly defendant\u2019s guilt of the offense charged.\nDefendant next contends that he was prejudiced by the State\u2019s repeated assertions that defendant instigated and led the 14-year-old White in the commission of the offense. Defendant correctly notes that no evidence was presented to sustain the charges. The State concedes that the statements were \u201cirrelevant.\u201d We agree. The remarks were injudicious and uncalled for. We do not believe, however, that defendant suffered any prejudice or that the statements made contributed to the verdict in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented.\nDefendant next contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. As noted above, the State\u2019s case rested almost entirely upon the evidence of Isaiah White, defendant\u2019s co-participant. Counsel made repeated references to the immunity given White for his testimony, characterizing it as a \u201cdeal\u201d and intimating that the prosecutor may have added .to the contents of White\u2019s testimony. Yet he did not tender an instruction cautioning the jury about accomplice testimony. Defendant cites People v. Georgev, 38 Ill.2d 165, 230 N.E.2d 851 (1967). The supreme court stated that in certain circumstances failure to tender an accomplice instruction is evidence of incompetence of counsel. The court held, however, that in light of the strong evidence of guilt and the presence of an instruction that determination of the credibility of witnesses is left to the jury, the defendant was not prejudiced by counsel\u2019s omission. The same situation exists in the present case. Defendant also relies on this court\u2019s opinion in People v. Butler, 23 Ill.App.3d 108, 318 N.E.2d 680 (1974). There, however, we found seven separate instances of incompetence, many involving highly prejudicial instructions tendered on behalf of the defendant. Reversal was based on the cumulative effect of these and numerous other errors. We noted that the failure to tender an accomplice instruction was \u201cbut one more serious indication of counsel\u2019s lack of preparation or unfamiliarity with the criminal process.\u201d The record before us in the instant case reflects just the contrary. Counsel was obviously well prepared and ably tried the case for the defendant. His cross-examination was vigorous and his arguments succinct and lucid. In addition, the record leads us to believe that the failure to give the instruction may have been conscious trial strategy. Defendant\u2019s theory was that although he was present at Johnson\u2019s Market with Isaiah White on the night of the offense, he was not guilty of burglary because he committed no entry. Since defendant chose not to testify, defendant\u2019s theory as well as the State\u2019s rested entirely on White\u2019s testimony. Counsel may have decided that he stood on firmer ground by accepting White\u2019s testimony and challenging its sufficiency in law than by attacking its credibility and leaving the jury free to judge only the circumstantial evidence. That this tactic was error in retrospect does not indicate the ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. Martin, 44 Ill.2d 489, 256 N.E.2d 337 (1970); People v. Higgins, 27 Ill.App.3d 266, 327 N.E.2d 135.) In any event, we do not believe that failure to tender an accomplice instruction so prejudiced defendant that, but for the omission, the outcome of the trial would have been different. People v. Bliss, 44 Ill.2d 363, 255 N.E.2d 405 (1970); People v. Stewart, 24 Ill.App.3d 605, 321 N.E.2d 450 (1974).\nDefendant\" finally contends that the sentence imposed was excessive. At sentencing the trial court noted that defendant had two recent felony convictions and had failed both times to comply with the terms of probation. He was on probation at the time of this offense and had failed to report to the probation officer for some time. We have recently held that a 2- to 6-year sentence was proper in a less aggravated case than the one before us. (People v. Van Gilder, 26 Ill.App.3d 152, 324 N.E.2d 715 (1975).) The trial court had a better opportunity to view the defendant, his record, and the evidence presented on his behalf and we will not disturb its findings.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nEBERSPACHER and G. MORAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE KARNS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul Bradley and Jan H. Stonecipher, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Donald E. Irvin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Bruce D. Irish and Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Williams, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-284;\nFifth District\nApril 24, 1975.\nPaul Bradley and Jan H. Stonecipher, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nDonald E. Irvin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Bruce D. Irish and Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0402-01", "first_page_order": 426, "last_page_order": 429 }