Find Legal Information

SECOND DIVISION

May 21, 2002

JUSTICE CAHILL delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant appeals a bench trial verdict convicting him of robbery and aggravated battery andthe 20-year and 5-year concurrent prison terms imposed. We affirm.

Beverly Ruiz, a 66-year-old woman, was unloading her groceries from her parked car in analley behind her home about noon on October 12, 1998, when a man wearing a white T-shirtapproached. The man asked Beverly what time it was. As she looked at her watch, the man grabbedher purse off her shoulder. Beverly was knocked to the ground in the struggle that followed. Theman took the purse and left in a white car. Beverly noted the license plate number on the car andyelled for help. Andres and Parnell Ruiz, Beverly's husband and son, were at home and heardBeverly call for them. Beverly told them what happened and gave them the license plate number ofthe white car. Beverly called the police to report the robbery. Andres and Parnell left in the familycar to look for the white car. They found it parked in front of a store about 15 minutes later. Therewas a woman inside the car. A man wearing a white T-shirt came out of the store, lit a cigarette andgot into the car. Andres and Parnell followed the car but lost sight of it after the woman passengerwas dropped off at 701 Christiana. Andres and Parnell looked at the man for about five minutes.

Beverly described to police the person who robbed her: a black man, about 5 feet 8 inchesor 5 feet 9 inches tall and 25 years old. She estimated his weight as more than 200 pounds. He wasclean shaven and wore a white, short sleeved T-shirt. Both Andres and Parnell described the personthey saw as a black man with corn row or braided hair.

Detective Michael Muzupappa investigated the case. He traced the license plate number toa woman who admitted owning a white Pontiac. She said that her husband, Tanner Riddle, drovethe car. Muzupappa contacted Riddle on October 22. Riddle said that he had loaned the car to"Manard" on October 9 and that it was not returned until October 13. Riddle gave Muzupappa"Manard's" phone number and "Manard's" sister's address at 714 N. Christiana. Muzupappa tracedthe phone number to an address at 205 N. Kolmar. Muzupappa and his partner went to that addresson October 22, shortly before midnight.

Muzupappa and his partner identified themselves as police officers and asked the womanwho answered the door if "Manard" was there. The woman let the officers inside and called out"Manard's" name. Defendant came out of a bedroom. Muzupappa noticed that defendant matchedthe description given by Beverly, Andres and Parnell. Defendant was then arrested. Defendant was5 feet 9 inches, weighed 210 pounds and had braids in his hair at the time of his arrest.

Beverly, Andres and Parnell Ruiz separately identified defendant in a lineup on October 23. After the lineup identification, defendant told police that he had borrowed a white Pontiac from hissister's friend on October 11 and 12.

Defendant filed a motion to quash his warrantless arrest for lack of probable cause. Defendant also sought to suppress the lineup identification and statements as fruits of an illegalarrest. The motion was denied.

At trial, Beverly identified defendant as the person who robbed her on October 12. Andresand Parnell identified defendant as the man they saw get into the car with the license plate numbermatching the one Beverly gave them. Beverly said that she had a good opportunity to see defendant'sface during the robbery.

Tanner Riddle testified that his wife owned a white Pontiac on October 12, 1998. Heidentified defendant as the person who borrowed the car in exchange for drugs. Riddle admitted oncross-examination that he was on a "binge high" when he loaned the car to defendant.

Defendant testified on his behalf that he was at a barbeque/baby shower at 139 North Walleron October 12. Defendant said he went to the shower with his mother, aunt, girlfriend and otherfamily members. He drove to the shower in a brown and beige Buick. He arrived at the shower at10 a.m. but left with his sister to buy drugs. He returned by 11:30 a.m. Defendant said he stayedat the shower until 9 p.m. and left in his own car. Defendant admitted selling drugs to Riddle before,but said he had only seen Riddle in a green car, not a white one. Defendant admitted using the greencar in September 1998, in exchange for $10. Defendant denied robbing anyone on October 12 anddescribed his hair as french braids, not corn rows. He also denied that he smoked cigarettes.

Christy, defendant's sister, testified that defendant was at the baby shower all day and leftonly to buy drugs with her. She did not see him driving a white car that day, only his brown Buick. She also denied that defendant smoked cigarettes.

Defendant's mother Jane Winn testified that her daughter Rhonda lived at 714 Christiana andwas dating Lawrence Sanders. Sanders was about 5 feet 8 inches tall, weighed 210 to 215 poundsand had braids in his hair. Winn said that defendant drove her and other family members to a babyshower on October 12. She said that, except for leaving for a short time in the morning, defendantwas at the shower all day from noon until the evening. Defendant drove a brown Buick. Winn saidthat defendant did not smoke and that he had a goatee. Winn knew who Riddle was but said thatdefendant never drove Riddle's white car.

Defendant's sister Rhonda testified that she used to smoke cocaine with Riddle. She livedat 714 Christiana with her boyfriend, Lawrence Sanders. Rhonda, Riddle and Lawrence were at herhouse on October 12. Lawrence left in Riddle's white car and has not been seen since.

The trial court found defendant guilty of both robbery and aggravated battery. He wassentenced to 20 years for robbery and received a concurrent 5-year term for aggravated battery.

Defendant raises four arguments on appeal: that (1) his motion to quash arrest and suppressevidence should have been granted; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdictbeyond a reasonable doubt; (3) a 20-year sentence for robbery was excessive; and (4) defendant wasimproperly convicted of both aggravated battery and robbery.

Defendant first contends that his warrantless arrest was unsupported by probable cause andshould have been quashed. Defendant claims that his postarrest statements and lineup identificationshould have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal arrest. A suppression hearing is traditionallyreviewed for manifest error. People v. Johnson, 182 Ill. 2d 96, 108, 695 N.E.2d 435 (1998). Butwhere, as here, neither the credibility of witnesses nor facts are contested, our review is de novo. People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 208, 743 N.E.2d 48 (2000). Defendant here accepts the State'sevidence. We consider de novo the trial court's legal conclusion that the facts supported a findingof probable cause. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d at 208.

A police officer must have probable cause to effect a valid, warrantless arrest. People v.Sims, 192 Ill. 2d 592, 614, 736 N.E.2d 1048 (2000). Probable cause exists where the facts andcircumstances known to a police officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to warrant a personof reasonable caution to believe that a crime was committed and that the crime was committed bythe person arrested. Sims, 192 Ill. 2d at 614. The existence of probable cause is determined by thetotality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest. People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d 226, 469 N.E.2d147 (1984). The determination is governed by common-sense and practical considerations, not legaltechnical rules. People v. Buss, 187 Ill. 2d 144, 204, 718 N.E.2d 1 (1999). The emphasis is on thefacts known by police at the time the arrest was made. Buss, 187 Ill. 2d at 204. Although meresuspicion is inadequate to create probable cause, the evidence relied on does not have to prove guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. Sims, 192 Ill. 2d at 614-15.

The crux of defendant's argument is that his arrest was based solely on the questionableinformation given by Tanner Riddle, whose veracity was not independently known to the police. Defendant contends that, under a totality of the circumstances, Riddle was a more likely suspect andthe police "should have done more to exclude" him as a suspect. Defendant fails to cite a case tosupport the argument that police have a duty to exclude from suspicion persons interviewed in thecourse of an ongoing investigation. Defendant overlooks that "courts have not ruled that an arrestcan occur only when the known facts indicate that it is more probable than not that the suspectedindividual has committed the crime." People v. Lippert, 89 Ill. 2d 171, 179, 432 N.E.2d 605 (1982),citing 1W. LaFave, Search and Seizure