Find Legal Information

THIRD DIVISION
June 19, 2002

JUSTICE SOUTH delivered the opinion of the court:

On February 19, 1999, defendants Carmelo Quintana and Jorge Navarrete were chargedwith five counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, four counts of aggravated kidnaping, onecount of criminal sexual assault, and two counts of kidnaping. In a bench trial, defendants weresimultaneously but separately tried and found guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault andaggravated kidnaping. Quintana was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on the aggravatedcriminal sexual assault charge and 6 years for aggravated kidnaping. Navarrete received a 20-year sentence for the aggravated criminal sexual assault conviction and 6 years for aggravatedkidnaping. Both of defendants' sentences run consecutively.

The evidence adduced at trial was as follows: the victim, L.D., testified that on January21, 1999, at approximately 9 p.m., she was walking home from her mother's house on 51st Streeta block past Western Avenue towards California Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. She walked in thestreet because the sidewalks were covered with snow and ice. As she was walking, a gold FordAerostar van drove alongside her, and someone pulled her inside the vehicle. DagobertoAlvorado was driving the van, defendant Navarrete sat in the middle seat behind the driver andpassenger seats, and defendant Quintana sat in the third rear seat behind the middle seat. L.D.was pulled into the middle seat with Navarrete. Quintana held her from behind while Navarretestruck her with a beer bottle and told her what he wanted to do to her. She began to take off herpants in order to avoid being struck again, and Navarrete pulled them off the rest of the way andlowered his own pants. He then laid on top of her and attempted to have intercourse with her. Herubbed his penis against her vagina, but there was no penetration. Quintana slapped her legs andbuttocks and laughed. Navarrete got off of her, at which time she tried to escape through the sidedoor but was pulled back into the van. Navarrete told Quintana to watch L.D. and make sure thatshe did not escape. L.D. asked defendants to release her, but they refused. In order to have abetter chance of escaping, she suggested to defendants that she get on top of Navarrete. At thattime, Navarrete's penis made contact with her vagina. She then struck Navarrete and jumpedbetween the driver and passenger front seats and out of the front passenger door. Defendantspushed her out as she was escaping the moving van. L.D. sprained her ankle and bruised herknees and ankles as a result of jumping from the moving van. She also sustained bruises andlacerations to her throat, face and jaw. When she jumped out of the van she was wearing only ablouse and a sock because her jeans, coat, scarf, sock and boots were still in the van. L.D. wastaken to Holy Cross Hospital, where she was treated and released.

On January 22, 1999, the police brought L.D. to a van which she identified as the vehiclein which she was assaulted. She also identified some of her clothing, which was found inside thevan. Later she viewed a lineup and identified defendants as the men who sexually assaulted her.

L.D. testified that she had two convictions for possession of a controlled substance andadmitted to using her sister's name at the time of the arrests. She denied being arrested forprostitution and denied agreeing to have sex with defendants, although she did admit to drinkingwith her family on the day of the attack.

Clarisa Figuero testified on behalf of the State that at approximately 9 p.m. on January21, 1999, she was walking down the street when she observed the driver's side of a gold FordAerostar van which was speeding through an alley. She could only see shadows but not thepeople inside. The van momentarily slowed down, and immediately thereafter she saw L.D.standing in the alley wearing only a shirt. Figuero approached L.D., who was screaming that shehad been raped. L.D. was bleeding from her mouth and had cuts on her face and neck. Figuerogave her her coat and walked with her to a neighbor's house where they called the police.

Figuero further testified that on January 22, 1999, the police came to her home and askedher to identify the vehicle she saw driving through the alley. Figuero had seen the van in theneighborhood and knew the owner. She identified the van by its color and the objects that werehanging from the rearview mirror.

Chicago police officer Stephanie Quinn testified that on January 22, 1999, she and herpartner, Officer Kenny Cap, picked up L.D. from her home and drove her to a van on 44st Streetand Francisco Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. L.D. identified the van as the one in which she hadbeen assaulted on the prior evening. On January 22, 1999, Officers Williams and Fleming wereconducting surveillance on Navarrete's van and home. When he came out of the house, theyasked him for identification, which he said was inside the house. They followed him into thehouse, found Quintana in the kitchen and placed both men under arrest.

Chicago police detective Sarro Komorowski testified that he interviewed L.D. onFebruary 26, 1999. He observed lacerations and bruises on her. In describing the attack, L.D.told him that she pulled down her pants at the time of the attack because she was frightened andwanted to avoid being struck again. She also told him that Navarrete finished pulling off herpants because she was taking too long. She told Komorowski that Navarrete had sex with herand that she got on top of Navarrete in order to escape, but she was afraid of being under him. She also told Komorowski that Navarrete inserted his penis inside her more than once. Komorowski's report reflected that L.D. told him that Navarrete's penis was inside her, but hecould not remember if L.D. had told him that. L.D. told Komorowski that Navarrete's penis wasbetween her legs and against her vagina, partially between her labia and partially inside hervagina, and that the position of Navarrete's penis varied according to L.D.'s position with respectto Navarrete and whether or not they were struggling.

Chicago police officer Eduardo Casas testified that on January 22, 1999, he was acertified Spanish language specialist for the police department and assisted in the investigation ofL.D.'s case by translating the conversations between Chicago police detectives Komorowski andAdams and defendants. Casas advised Quintana of his Miranda rights in Spanish, and he alsoadvised Navarrete of his Miranda rights in Spanish. Casas assisted Assistant State's AttorneyClarissa Palermo in Navarrete's interview, and Navarrete agreed to reduce his statement towriting. Palermo and Casas spoke with Quintana, and he agreed to put his statement in writing. Casas advised defendants of their Miranda rights in Spanish prior to their interview withPalermo.

Quintana's statement read that on January 21, 1999, around 8 p.m., Alvarado was drivingNavarrete's van with Quintana and Navarrete in the passenger seats. They picked up L.D. around51st Street and Damen Avenue because she had asked for a ride while walking in the street. L.D.sat next to Alvarado in the front passenger seat. As Alvarado drove near an alley at 46th Streetand Rockwell Street, he stopped the van, and Navarrete pulled the victim into the backseat andattempted to pull off her pants. She struggled against him, and he slapped her face. Navarreteattempted to have sex with the victim, who said "no" while he tried to pull down her pants. Navarrete stopped having sex with L.D. for two minutes then grabbed her again. Quintanacovered the victim's mouth when she screamed. Quintana watched Navarrete have sex with herand grabbed her when she tried to escape. L.D. repositioned herself on top of Navarrete and hadsex with him. Quintana slapped L.D. on the buttocks while she was on top of Navarrete. Fiveminutes later, L.D. jumped off Navarrete and out the front passenger door wearing only a T-shirt. Later Navarrete put L.D.'s clothes in a plastic bag and gave it to Quintana, who placed it ina garbage can in an alley.

Navarrete's statement read that on January 21, 1999, around 7:30 or 8 p.m., he was in hisvan with Quintana and Alvarado around 51st Street and Damen Avenue. Navarrete saw L.D.walking down the street and agreed to give her a ride. Navarrete drove the van into an alley near45th and Rockwell Street, stopped the van, and pushed L.D. into the backseat. Navarreteclimbed into the backseat and tried to remove L.D.'s pants, at which time she began screaming. Quintana covered her mouth and restrained her. L.D. asked defendants not to hurt her and beganremoving her pants. She said "no" three times. Navarrete finished pulling off her pants, pulleddown his pants, got on top of the victim and began rubbing his penis against her. Navarrete toldQuintana to watch the door in case she tried to escape. Navarrete laid down and L.D. got on topof him. He held her under the arms while she was on top. His penis was partially inside hervagina for 10 minutes. As the van approached 44th Street and Washtenaw Street, the victim gotoff Navarrete and jumped out of the front passenger door wearing only a T-shirt. Defendantsdrove away. Navarrete found L.D.'s clothes, and Quintana threw them into a garbage can.

At trial, Quintana testified that on January 21, 1999, around 7 p.m., he was in Navarrete'svan with Alvarado and Navarrete, who was driving. Alvarado sat in the middle seat, andQuintana sat in the far rear seat. They drove to a liquor store near 51st Street and Damen Avenuewhere Navarrete exited the van and vomited. L.D. approached Navarrete, asked him for a ridehome, and got into the van. Navarrete sat in the driver's seat, and L.D. sat in the front passenger'sseat. They drove towards 45th Street and Western Avenue to a friend's home. Alvarado askedL.D. if she wanted a beer, and she said yes. Everyone drank beer, including L.D. Quintanatestified that Alvarado spoke English to the woman, but he could not understand what they weresaying. Alvarado asked L.D. in English if she wanted to have sex, and she said "no." She drankanother beer, and Alvarado asked her again if she wanted to have sex with him. At this time, shesaid that she would have sex if he paid her. Quintana testified that Alvarado asked Navarrete todrive to an alley. The van stopped, and Alvarado went to the front passenger door and opened it. L.D. told Alvarado to get in the back seat. Alvarado and L.D. had sex in the middle seat withAlvarado on top. They changed positions, and L.D. got on top of Alvarado. Navarrete begandriving, and when they reached 43rd Street and Washtenaw Street, Alvarado and L.D. beganarguing in English. At that time, she jumped out of the front passenger side door. Quintana alsotestified that he did not have sex with L.D. nor did he hit, restrain or laugh at her. Navarretestopped the van and asked why she had left. Alvarado told him that she had wanted more money,but he had refused. Quintana did not know what happened to the clothes that L.D. had left in thevan. They then drove to Ford City to pick up Navarrete's wife. After picking up Navarrete'swife, they dropped off Alvarado at 43rd Street and Maplewood Avenue, and then Navarrete, hiswife and Quintana went to Navarrete's home. Quintana does not know of Alvarado'swhereabouts.

Quintana testified further that on January 22, 1999, at 10 a.m., he was arrested and takento the police station. The police asked him several times to give a statement and stated that, if hesigned some papers, he could go home. The police told him that Navarrete had already signedthe papers. Quintana testified that the papers were not translated for him into Spanish. Casasspoke to him in Spanish but never translated the papers. Casas told him to sign each page. Quintana had known Navarrete for 20 years and was living with him at the time of his arrest. Quintana also testified that L.D. removed her own clothes and that he told the police thatAlvarado had sex with L.D. for $20. He did not know what happened to L.D.'s clothes, but theywere not in the van when they picked up Navarrete's wife. Quintana never told Casas thatNavarrete tried to remove the victim's pants and have sex with her or that he, Quintana, coveredthe victim's mouth when she screamed.

Navarrete testified that on January 21, 1999, around 8 p.m., he was driving Quintana andAlvarado to a liquor store. Quintana was sitting in the farthest rear seat, and Alvarado was sittingin the middle seat behind Navarrete. He pulled the van over because he had to vomit. L.D.approached Navarrete, asked him in Spanish for a ride to 44th Street and Kedzie Avenue and satin the front seat on the passenger's side. As they approached 45th Street and Western Avenue,Alvarado asked L.D. in Spanish if she wanted to have sex, and she said "no." Alvarado gave hera beer and asked her again, and this time she agreed to have sex if Alvarado paid her $20. Alvarado told Navarrete to drive to the alley between 44th and 45th Streets because he was goingto have sex with L.D. They parked the van in an alley near a friend's garage, and Alvarado gotout of the vehicle and went to the front passenger door and removed L.D.'s boots and pants. L.D.and Alvarado moved to the middle seat and began having sex with Alvarado positioned on top. Quintana told Navarrete to drive. L.D. then got on top of Alvarado near 44th Street and MapleStreet. L.D. never told Alvarado to stop, and he did not see Alvarado give L.D. money. As theyapproached Rockwell Street, L.D. and Alvarado began arguing. Navarrete did not understandwhat they were saying because they were speaking English. Navarrete turned onto 43rd Streetand Washtenaw Avenue, and at that time L.D. jumped out of the moving van. Alvarado said thatL.D. had left because he had refused to give her more money. Navarrete did not know whathappened to L.D.'s clothes, and he never had sex with her or struck her.

Navarette further testified that L.D. never mentioned sex for money before he agreed togive her a ride. He testified that L.D. was a "lady of the streets" and that she and Alvaradoagreed in Spanish that she would have sex with him for $20. Alvarado told him to drive to thealley because L.D. requested in English that they drive down the alley. He did not know whathappened to the victim's clothes, but they were not inside the van. While he had knownAlvarado for 12 years, he did not know his current whereabouts.

Navarrete further testified that when the police first interviewed him, he refused to talk tothem but spoke to them the second time they approached him. An assistant State's Attorney tooknotes in another interview. Casas showed Navarrete the notes, but he did not understand them. He never told Casas that he pushed L.D. into the backseat, or that he tried to take off her pants orthat L.D. screamed. He did not tell Casas that Quintana covered L.D.'s mouth, nor did he tellCasas that he found L.D.'s clothes and that Quintana threw them into a garbage can. He did tellCasas that he drove the van and asked Alvarado what had happened after L.D. left.

Defendants have raised four issues for our review: (1) whether their convictions foraggravated kidnaping should be vacated because the asportation and detention of the victim wereincidental to the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Navarrete to a 26-year consecutive sentence and Quintana to a 21-year consecutive sentence; (3) whether Navarrete's judgment order should be amended to reflectthat he served a total of 609 days where he remained in custody from the time of his arrest onJanuary 22, 1999, to the date of his sentencing hearing on September 22, 2000; (4) whetherdefendants' mittimus orders should be corrected to reflect a different entry of judgment for theaggravated kidnaping count where the mittimus orders show that defendants were convicted ofaggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnaping based on aggravated criminal sexualassault.

The appropriate standard of review in sex offense cases is whether, after viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have foundthe essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d482, 490, 579 N.E.2d 1008, 1015 (1991); People v. Casiano, 212 Ill. App. 3d 680, 689, 571N.E.2d 742, 748 (1991). When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, areviewing court will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbableor unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d at490, 579 N.E.2d at 1015; Casiano, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 689, 571 N.E.2d at 748. In a bench trial itis the function of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be giventheir testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 490,579 N.E.2d at 1015. Conflicting testimony is to be resolved by the trier of fact. Riley, 219 Ill.App. 3d at 491, 579 N.E.2d at 1015.

Kidnaping occurs when a person knowingly and secretly confines another against her willor by force or threat of imminent force carries another from one place to another with intent tosecretly confine her against her will. 720 ILCS 5/10-1 (West 1998); People v. Ware, 323 Ill.App. 3d 47, 54, 751 N.E.2d 81, 88 (2001). A kidnapper commits the offense of aggravatedkidnaping when he inflicts great bodily harm or commits another felony upon his victim in thecourse of the kidnaping. 720 ILCS 5/10-2 (West 1998); People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 194-95, 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1134 (1988). The secret confinement element of kidnaping may be shownby proof of the secrecy of either the confinement or the place of confinement. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2dat 195, 522 N.E.2d at 1134; Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 487, 579 N.E.2d at 1013. "Secretconfinement" is a necessary element of kidnaping under section 10-1(a)(1) of the Criminal Codeof 1961 (720 ILCS 5/10-1(a)(1) (West 1998)). Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 487, 579 N.E.2d at1013. "Secret" denotes concealed, hidden, or not made public. Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 487,579 N.E.2d at 1013. Confinement is established where the victim has been clearly enclosedwithin something, most commonly, a house or a car. Riley, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 487, 579 N.E.2dat 1013.

To sustain a conviction of criminal sexual assault, there must be evidence that adefendant committed an act of sexual penetration, i.e., any contact, however slight, between thesex organ of one person and the sex organ, mouth or anus of another person, by the use or threatof force or violence. 720 ILCS 5/12-13 (West 1998); Casiano, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 689, 571N.E.2d at 748. Aggravated criminal sexual assault occurs if the accused commits criminal sexualassault and an aggravated circumstance as defined by the Criminal Code existed during thecommission of the offense such as the threat or use of a dangerous weapon . 720 ILCS 5/12-14(West 1998).

To determine whether an asportation or detention rises to the level of kidnaping as aseparate offense, Illinois courts consider the following four factors: (1) the duration of theasportation or detention; (2) whether the asportation or detention occurred during the commissionof a separate offense; (3) whether the asportation or detention that occurred is inherent in theseparate offense; and (4) whether the asportation or detention created a significant danger to thevictim independent of that posed by the separate offense. People v. Smith, 91 Ill. App. 3d 523,529, 414 N.E.2d 1117, 1122 (1980); Ware, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 54, 751 N.E.2d at 88. A kidnapingconviction is not precluded by the brevity of the asportation or the limited distance of themovement. Ware, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 54, 751 N.E.2d at 88. Whether an asportation is sufficientto constitute a kidnaping depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Ware,323 Ill. App. 3d at 54, 751 N.E.2d at 88.

In People v. Casiano, 212 Ill. App. 3d 680, 571 N.E.2d 742 (1991), the defendant was charged with forcing a victim to walk 1