2024 IL App (1st) 11545-U
No. 1-21-1545
Order filed March 28, 2024.
First Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 2016 CR 0920902 ) FLOYD BELL, ) The Honorable ) Patrick Coughlin, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of armed robbery by accountability beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to a 33-year term of imprisonment. This court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Floyd Bell was found guilty by accountability of armed
robbery and was sentenced to 33 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, contending the State’s No. 1-21-1545
occurrence witness was biased and falsely implicated him in the crime, and his inculpatory
statement was incredible and therefore invalid. Defendant also contends his 33-year sentence is
excessive. We affirm.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was arrested and charged with the aforementioned offense, along with felony
murder, after a group of men robbed a Boost Mobile telephone store (Boost) in South Holland,
on 162nd Street, and murdered one of the store’s clients around 2 p.m. on May 17, 2016. Police
traced the crime back to defendant, then age 24. The State theorized that although defendant did
not enter the store, he was the master-mind behind the armed robbery because he had dated the
store clerk, Imani Williams (formerly Smith), and had visited the store where she usually worked
alone prior to the hold-up, essentially casing the store. The State presented evidence that, in
addition to conveying details of the store’s layout to his accomplices, defendant also served as
the getaway driver and received portions of the armed robbery proceeds.
¶5 The Criminal Offenses
¶6 In particular, the evidence at trial showed that on the day in question, defendant drove in
a vehicle with his brothers, Deangelo Parker, Cornelius Bell, and an acquaintance, John Carter,
to Boost. Once at the store, defendant remained in the vehicle. Parker, who was armed and
wearing a white ski mask covering his face, along with Carter, entered the store and ordered the
three occupants, consisting of Gail Norfleet, her boyfriend Christopher Lloyd, and Boost store
clerk, Williams, to put their hands up. According to Norfleet, prior to that, she had been simply
shopping for a new phone. Norfleet was ordered to empty her purse, and the unarmed man (later
understood to be Carter) ordered the store clerk Williams to open the register, containing almost
2 No. 1-21-1545
$200. Carter took the money out of the register and then asked if there was also a safe. Williams
responded that it was in the back.
¶7 Carter ordered Williams and customers Norfleet and Lloyd to walk inside the room
where the safe was located; Parker, still armed, followed behind the group. Norfleet and
Williams walked inside, while Lloyd stood just outside with Parker directly behind him. Carter
and Parker demanded the password to the safe and tried it several times, but it did not work.
Lloyd pled with Williams to open the safe, but he then turned around and grabbed Parker. They
began to “tussle” and fell out of view. Carter went to help, while Norfleet locked the door to the
safe room, and she and Williams then hid in a utility closet. Norfleet heard Lloyd “asking them
not to - - to shoot.”
¶8 Norfleet heard two shots, and the gunman order Lloyd to get on the ground if he wanted
to live. Lloyd agreed and then it went quiet. Norfleet heard the back door chime, as if someone
had left the store, so she opened the safe room door, but observed Parker still standing over
Lloyd, who was on the floor. She slowly closed the door, and the women returned to the utility
closet. Norfleet heard the front doorbell and Williams’ friend calling her name. The door chimed
again, and Norfleet could hear what she believed were Parker’s footsteps inside the safe room
again. He then left, and the back door chimed. Meanwhile, Lloyd was moaning.
¶9 Eventually, Norfleet and Williams emerged when the offenders had left. Norfleet ran to
Lloyd, who was lying on the floor beaten and shot, and she screamed to call the police. A 911
call reporting a robbery at Boost was made at 2:04 p.m. Lloyd subsequently died from the
gunshot wound to his abdomen and cardiac arrest before even arriving at the hospital.
¶ 10 Williams’ testimony about the incident was largely the same as Norfleet’s, delineated
above, only she stated that Parker initially had his mask rolled up, so she could see his face. He
3 No. 1-21-1545
pulled it down as he took out the gun. She also testified that initially she and Carter were the only
two in the safe room, with the others standing at the doorway. She added that following the
tussle between Parker and Lloyd she heard one of the robbers say words to the effect that,
“You’re going to die trying to be a hero today, you’re going to get shot trying to be a hero
today.” She also heard two shots and then the alarm, signaling first that the front door and then
that the back door was being opened. In addition, Williams testified that Kiara Stallworth,
Williams’ friend, came in the front door inquiring about what was happening, and it was then
that Williams felt safe enough to emerge from the closet. Lloyd was on the ground, and Norfleet
leaned down next to him and was crying. Williams then called the police, and they arrived within
minutes.
¶ 11 Williams’ testimony on direct and cross-examination further revealed that she went to the
police station immediately after the robbery and again two days later (on May 19), reporting that
the gunman looked familiar and Williams “recognized him,” but she did not recall who he was.
During the second interview, an investigator mentioned defendant’s name, and Williams
“immediately knew that he had to have something to do with” the incident. She had known
defendant over a year before the robbery. They were “really close” and had been in “somewhat”
of a dating relationship, which was admittedly sexual in nature. It dawned on Williams that
defendant’s brother, Parker, was one of the robbers and the gunman. Williams had met Parker
once at a family gathering of defendant’s; in addition, she had met Cornelius several times
(although she did not see Cornelius the day of the robbery).
¶ 12 Williams subsequently identified Parker in a police lineup as the robber with the gun,
and she also identified defendant from a photo presented to her by investigators and then in court
at trial. Norfleet identified Carter from a photo line-up. Norfleet did not see defendant inside the
4 No. 1-21-1545
store. At trial, both Williams and Norfleet identified the ski mask, an exhibit, that Parker wore
during the robbery.
¶ 13 Williams further testified that the week before the robbery, defendant spent the night with
Williams and went with her to her workplace at Boost the next morning (he had been to the store
five or six times before). He was with her almost her entire work day, and during that time,
Williams and defendant went to the back of the store where the safe was located. On cross,
however, she admitted that he never asked about the safe, its code, security cameras and guards
(although, neither was visible in the store), or how much she kept in the register. Williams
testified she and defendant then argued later that night because another woman picked defendant
up from the store, and as a result, around May 14 (three days before the robbery), Williams
ruined defendant’s clothes that he’d left behind. She gave them to him before the offenses in
question but stated she did not see defendant on the day of the robbery. On redirect, Williams
stated that on May 17, she posted on social media that her store had been robbed, and defendant
called her that night to ask what happened and if she was okay, reporting that he had seen her
post.
¶ 14 The Investigation & Videotaped Admissions
¶ 15 Police subsequently responded to the armed robbery and shooting on May 17, 2016,
learning that the offenders had exited the back of the store. In the neighborhood behind the store,
they saw a man later identified as Parker behind a tree in a yard. He was sweating and out of
breath with what appeared to be blood stains on his pants. Police exited their vehicle, and
attempted to address Parker, but he ran. However, shortly thereafter, police detained Parker and
brought him to the station, within a mere 10 minutes of first learning about the offense.
5 No. 1-21-1545
¶ 16 Based on subsequent interviews with Parker, police began searching for the vehicle used
in the hold-up and murder, a white Lincoln with Utah registration in Parker’s name. They were
also searching for the other suspects, defendant and Carter. Police learned that the suspects and
vehicle possibly could be found at 10815 S. Hoxie in Chicago. Therefore, the day after the
murder, on May 18, a surveillance team proceeded to that location, observing Cornelius step out
of 10815 S. Hoxie. He looked up and down the block and returned. 1 Defendant then exited that
same residence and drove away in the suspect vehicle. Defendant was stopped, arrested and
taken into custody.
¶ 17 Following Mirandized warnings, police interviewed defendant around 4 p.m. on May 18,
2016, for 45 minutes to an hour. Defendant initially denied any involvement in the offenses but
began admitting certain information. Defendant was then taken back to his lockup cell. Police
conducted a quick interview around 6:45 p.m., but soon thereafter discovered that the recording
equipment had quit working at some point during the first interview (about the last 10 to 20
minutes was missing). 2 Incidentally, it was during this point when the video quit working that
defendant began to admit information. The police created a memo regarding the failed recording.
As a result, police reinterviewed defendant around 11:30 p.m. in a different room with working
equipment following another set of Miranda warnings, and then again on May 19, 2016.
¶ 18 During the course of the interviews, defendant admitted that he and Parker had planned
the armed robbery in advance and obtained a gun for that purpose. Defendant stated he had been
1 Cornelius was arrested and admitted to being in the white Lincoln during the robbery and to also receiving funds from the robbery, but he was not charged. He was also subsequently murdered. Cornelius positively identified Carter. 2 The State presented evidence that defendant identified a photo of Carter (whom he referred to as “Lee John”). Defendant stated that Carter had ridden with them and then went into Boost with his brother to rob the store. During his interview with police, defendant stated that Cornelius had not been inside Boost. Further, the charges against Carter were ultimately dismissed.
6 No. 1-21-1545
inside the store several times with Williams and knew the store’s layout. Beforehand, defendant
and Parker discussed how the store was set up, and defendant told Parker he did not remember
seeing any cameras. Defendant admitted that after they stopped at the gas station, he rode along
with Cornelius, Carter and Parker to Boost; on the way there, Carter asked about the safe and
discussed the logistics of the armed robbery. Then, Carter and Parker both went inside Boost
with the intent of committing the armed robbery. Additionally, defendant knew the gun was
inside a Wilson tennis bag (later determined to be the Babolat brand), which Parker carried
inside the store. Defendant could not go inside because he knew Williams, and he had recently
spent the night with her. Defendant, however, advised his cooffenders not to hurt Williams or do
anything while customers were inside the store. Defendant stated that he and his criminal cohort
had agreed that if the police came to Boost, they would leave. After Parker and Carter went
inside, defendant got into the driver’s seat of the vehicle.
¶ 19 Following the offenses, Carter ran out of the store, entered the vehicle with defendant,
and they drove off looking for Parker for some 30 to 45 minutes. Carter described the armed
robbery to defendant and also had money with him. Parker called defendant several times, but
they could not find him, and so they left the neighborhood when they saw police. They (minus
Parker) then returned to defendant’s home at Hoxie. Defendant thus admitted being inside the
vehicle before, during, and after the offenses. Defendant also received the proceeds of the armed
robbery.
¶ 20 Following the interviews, defendant made calls from his jail cell, which were recorded
and published to the jury. Defendant stated, “We ain’t do no first degree murder,” and that “none
of this was supposed to happen.” He further stated that he “should have stayed home,” and that
7 No. 1-21-1545
he told the police about “the ride” and that he “was in the car.” He added that “there’s some time
[that’s] gonna be done.”
¶ 21 An officially sanctioned police search later ensued at and around 917 East 161st Place,
which was within walking distance from Boost. At the outside trash bin, police recovered a
Babolat tennis racquet with stains on the case cover. Inside the case was a gray sweatshirt with
blood-like stains and a .40 caliber HiPoint firearm, loaded with six bullets, that had apparent
blood stains on it, in addition to a cell phone. The firearm was swabbed for DNA.
¶ 22 In the customer area of Boost, police recovered a cash register containing only loose
change (totaling $4.85). In the storage area, they recovered a cut-up, bloody gray sweatshirt
bearing apparent blood splatters on the cuff consistent with a close-range shooting, and a white t-
shirt with a hole in it consistent with a fired bullet entering through it. Police further recovered
from the storage area two gold-colored .40 Tulammo Smith & Wesson spent shell casings; an
unfired bullet of the same type; and a white ski mask, swabbed for DNA. There were several
holes in the wall with projectile fragments from a firearm discharge, along with similar
fragments on the floor. Just outside the storage room was a clump of hair with blood-like stains
on it. The items were inventoried. Forensic evidence showed that the fired cartridge casings and
an unfired cartridge case found at Boost did indeed come from the firearm found at 917 161st
Place (a HiPoint JCP, 40 Smith & Wesson firearm in proper working condition), as did one
bullet that entered Lloyd, which was recovered during the autopsy.
¶ 23 The parties then stipulated to the following forensic evidence. Parker was a possible
donor of the major DNA profile identified on the white facial mask, which had been swabbed for
DNA; Lloyd and Carter were excluded. Lloyd was included as a donor of the DNA found on the
firearm and its components, which had also been swabbed for DNA; Carter was excluded. Lloyd
8 No. 1-21-1545
was included as a donor of additional male DNA found on Parker’s fingers; Carter was excluded.
Oral swabs, hair, and fingernail specimens were collected from Lloyd. Parker was included as a
donor of the minor DNA profile found on the right fingernails of Lloyd; Carter was excluded.
¶ 24 In addition, police collected video surveillance with time stamps around the time of the
offenses (which occurred about 2 p.m.) from various businesses within a quarter mile, a half
block, and around the corner from Boost, depicting a vehicle consistent with the White Lincoln
bearing Utah plates. The surveillance video from the business right next to Boost depicted the
victim and two other subjects walking into the business at 1:57 p.m. The surveillance video from
the GoLo Luke’s Gas Station in Hammond, Indiana, depicted the suspect vehicle at 1:30 p.m.
¶ 25 Following this evidence, the State rested. Defendant moved for a directed verdict, which
was denied.
¶ 26 Defendant’s Testimony & Jury Finding
¶ 27 Defendant testified on his own behalf denying that he was present at the scene or
involved in planning the armed robbery. Defendant testified instead that on the day in question
he spent the night with his girlfriend but was then dropped off at Parker’s home (78th an Yates)
around 9 a.m. Around 1 p.m., defendant and Parker went to GoLo in Hammond, Indiana, in a
white Lincoln Town car to get gas. Defendant identified himself in the video surveillance from
the gas station (on cross, he specifically acknowledged the video showed him getting out of the
white Lincoln and going into the store). Parker and defendant then went to 108th and Hoxie,
about five minutes from the gas station. There were a number of people there, including
Cornelius and Carter. A short while later, Cornelius, Carter, and Parker left in the white Lincoln,
but defendant did not know where they were going. Instead, defendant “kicked” it with his
girlfriend, Zsa Zsa Banks, and “smoked weed, played cards, talked shit.” While Cornelius and
9 No. 1-21-1545
Carter returned that evening, Parker did not. Cornelius “was shook up like something happened,”
and then Cornelius and defendant “talked for hours and [Cornelius] told [defendant] what
happened with the robbery.” Cornelius also had money on him when he returned. Defendant
didn’t know they were going to commit a robbery beforehand. Defendant denied leaving the
neighborhood that day.
¶ 28 Defendant claimed he found out about the crimes the next day. He was driving Parker’s
car with keys he’d gotten from Cornelius when police stopped him. Defendant only spoke to
police because they told him on several occasions that they would release him if he “told them
what [he] knew.” Defendant initially told police that he had not been involved in the robbery but
confessed his involvement only after the video recording stopped. 3 He noted his story had to
match what Cornelius told him for “it to make sense.” Defendant was interviewed several more
times and essentially admitted that he was in the car during the robbery and that Williams had
been one of his girlfriends. Yet, while defendant had spent time in Boost, he never asked about
any security cameras, the safe, or how much money was in the cash register. He was not
“looking to rob her store.”
¶ 29 On cross, defendant acknowledged that during his interview he understood he was being
recorded and everything he said to officers could be used against him at trial, and yet, he kept
talking. Defendant admitted having told investigators about his involvement in the crimes, yet
continued to claim his inculpatory videotaped statements were coerced.
¶ 30 Defendant rested. Following evidence and argument, the jury acquitted defendant of the
first degree murder charge but found him guilty by accountability of armed robbery while armed
with a firearm. Defendant filed a posttrial motion, which was denied.
3 On cross, defendant acknowledged testifying at the motion to suppress hearing that police made this promise after he was taken to his cell (not when the video recording stopped).
10 No. 1-21-1545
¶ 31 Sentencing
¶ 32 The cause proceeded to sentencing, and it was noted that defendant faced a sentence of 6
to 30 years for armed robbery, plus a mandatory 15-year add-on for having inflicted great bodily
harm on the victim via a firearm, to be served at 85 percent. See 720 ILCS 5/18-2 (West 2014);
730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2014). The State presented and published four victim impact
statements, including from the victim’s mother, who noted that Lloyd was her only son; the
victim’s ex-wife, who noted Lloyd was only 45 years old, they were both expecting to be
grandparents, and their son struggled with the loss of his dad; the victim’s sister, who noted that
Lloyd was her only brother; and Norfleet, who discussed her intense pain on losing Lloyd.
Lloyd’s sister and ex-wife both asked for the maximum penalty, respectively claiming “these
criminals did not care or consider that my brother’s life mattered[,]” and “[a]t least [defendant’s]
family would be fortunate enough to see him even if it is behind bars. Unfortunately, our family
can’t say the same. We have to go to an empty gravesite and talk to our loved one but leave with
the void of never hearing him speak back to us.”
¶ 33 Defendant presented several statements to the court, which were published, including one
from his pastor who had known him prior to his incarceration. The pastor noted defendant would
not hurt anyone deliberately, he had a caring sensibility to others, and accepted responsibility for
his actions. The second was from his girlfriend who stated she had known defendant for 10
years, and he was a “gentle soul” who would not seek to hurt another. She noted he was a
devoted father to his 8-year-old child and had been reformed during his incarceration. She asked
for leniency.
¶ 34 In aggravation, the State argued that defendant orchestrated and planned the armed
robbery that cost Lloyd his life. The State noted that defendant admitted having a relationship
11 No. 1-21-1545
with the store clerk, Williams; having been to her store on multiple occasions; having spoken
with Parker about the armed robbery; knowing that when Parker and Carter entered Boost, they
were armed; and driving the getaway vehicle. The State noted defendant had a pending public
indecency charge for masturbating in a room while on the phone. Defendant’s history also
showed 12 other separate infractions incurred over five years while incarcerated and awaiting
trial, including: fighting multiple times, battery, bribery, disobeying or resisting orders,
disrespecting staff, failing to maintain sanitary and orderly conditions, disorderly conduct,
uniform violations, telephone abuse, tattooing, and unauthorized drug possession and medication
misusage. Based on the foregoing, the State asked that defendant be sentenced to the maximum
allowed, 45 years.
¶ 35 In mitigation, defendant argued that the jury found him not guilty of murder and that he
had no prior felony convictions. Counsel maintained defendant did not produce a gun, enter the
store, or shoot anyone. Rather, “[t]his is something stupid that he did to try and get some
money.” Counsel asked that the court overlook the jail infractions. Counsel further noted that
defendant was close with his siblings and had the support of his girlfriend and pastor. Counsel
argued against giving defendant the maximum for a first-time offense, asserting that defendant
could still become a valuable member of society. Defendant prepared a statement, which counsel
read to the court. Defendant offered condolences to the Lloyd family, stating that if he could
change what happened, he would. Defendant asserted that he had been rehabilitated during his
five years of incarceration by reading books and attending barber college.
¶ 36 The court reviewed the letters offered by both the defense and the State, defendant’s
presentence investigation report, and defendant’s comments. In mitigation, the court noted
defendant’s abusive childhood, wherein he was transferred to several foster homes, and endured
12 No. 1-21-1545
drug usage and physical abuse in the home. Although defendant completed only the 11th grade,
he had obtained his G.E.D. while incarcerated. Defendant had some employment history. He was
engaged and had a relationship with his two children, including his 8-year-old daughter, who
would experience hardship due to defendant’s incarceration. Defendant reported previous drug
usage, but denied anything current. The court noted defendant’s lack of adult felonies.
¶ 37 In aggravation, the court observed that while defendant was acquitted of Lloyd’s murder,
and the court would not punish defendant for a crime for which he was acquitted, there was no
question that Lloyd lost his life during this armed robbery. The court found the murder still could
be considered in aggravation because it was not an element of the armed robbery offense. The
court observed that defendant was at Boost with Williams, casing the store a week in advance,
and the cohort targeted this particular store because defendant was familiar with it. According to
the court, the only reason defendant did not enter was fear that Williams would recognize him.
The court further observed that although defendant told his codefendants not to harm Williams,
he likewise went with Parker to obtain the gun used in the robbery. Thus, defendant knew this
would be an armed robbery. Based on the foregoing, the court found defendant played a major
role in setting up the crime and the court could not say such conduct would not occur in the
future. Considering all the factors, including that great bodily harm was inflicted during the
armed robbery, the court sentenced defendant to 33 years’ imprisonment, to be served at 85
percent. The court noted the aggravating factor of deterrence applied. Defendant’s motion to
reconsider the sentence was denied. This appeal followed.
¶ 38 ANALYSIS
¶ 39 Defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. When
considering such a challenge, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light
13 No. 1-21-1545
most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Walls, 2022 IL App (1st) 200167, ¶ 17. Under
this standard, it’s for the trier of fact to fairly resolve any conflicts in testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. People v.
Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill 2d 213, 224 (2009). As a reviewing court, we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the trier of fact on issues involving the weight of the evidence or witness
credibility. Id. at 224-25. A conviction will not be set aside on appeal unless the evidence is so
unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the
defendant’s guilt. People v. Wright, 2017 IL 119561, ¶ 70.
¶ 40 To prove defendant guilty of armed robbery, the State was required to establish that
defendant, or one for whom he was legally responsible, knowingly took “property from the
person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force”
and while armed with a firearm. 720 ILCS 5/18-1, 18-2(a)(2), 5-2 (West 2014). In addition to the
elements of the offense, the State had to prove that defendant was accountable, insofar as either
before or during the commission of the armed robbery, and with the intent to promote or
facilitate that commission, he solicited, aided, abetted, agreed, or attempted to aid his cohort in
the planning or commission of the armed robbery. See 720 ILCS 5/5-2(c) (West 2014). In other
words, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant shared the criminal
intent of the principal, or there was a common criminal design. People v. Perez, 189 Ill. 2d 254,
266 (2000). Intent may be inferred from the character of the defendant’s acts and circumstances
surrounding the offense. Id.
¶ 41 Further, under the common-design rule, where two or more people engage in a common
criminal design or agreement, any acts in furtherance committed by one party are considered the
14 No. 1-21-1545
acts of all parties, and all are equally responsible for those further acts. People v. Fernandez,
2014 IL 115527, ¶ 13; Walls, 2022 IL App (1st) 200167, ¶ 20. Evidence that a defendant
voluntarily attached himself to a group bent on illegal acts with knowledge of its design supports
an inference that he shared the common purpose and will sustain his conviction for an offense
committed by another. Id. In addition, proof that a defendant was present during the offense, that
he fled from the scene, that he maintained close ties with his companions after the crime, and
that he failed to report the crime are all factors that the trier of fact may consider in determining
the defendant’s legal accountability. Walls, 2022 IL App (1st) 200167, ¶ 20.
¶ 42 Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, as we must, we cannot
say it was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt of
defendant’s guilt, where it showed that defendant, along with his criminal cohort, committed the
following acts in furtherance of the armed robbery. See id. First, one week prior to the offenses,
defendant went with Williams to Boost, which ostensibly lacked both security guards and
cameras. Williams testified defendant spent almost the entire day with her, after having visited
the store on five or six prior occasions, and that they specifically went to the back of the store
where the safe was located. Second, prior to the incident, defendant admittedly obtained a gun,
along with Parker, for the purposes of using it in the armed robbery. Beforehand, defendant
admittedly told Parker of the store set-up and lack of cameras.
¶ 43 Third, defendant then admittedly drove in the car with cooffenders Parker and Carter to
Boost on the day in question, and waited there while Parker and Carter subsequently entered the
store and committed the armed robbery and murder of Lloyd. See 720 ILCS 5/5-2 (2014)
(presence at the crime scene with other circumstances may be considered). Defendant knew
Parker was carrying the Babolat tennis bag, containing the gun, into the store. Defendant
15 No. 1-21-1545
admittedly drove the getaway vehicle with Carter, the unarmed robber, they searched for Parker,
the gunman, who had run from the crime scene, and defendant received proceeds from the armed
robbery. He did not report the crime. Last, the next day, police observed defendant driving this
same getaway vehicle (registered to Parker) after Cornelius (who was also present at the armed
robbery) looked in both directions from the house in an apparent attempt to check for authorities.
¶ 44 In addition to defendant’s admissions, the physical evidence revealed that Parker’s DNA
was associated with the white mask, which both Williams and Norfleet identified at trial as the
mask Parker wore. The register from the store contained only loose change, and the gun police
recovered from the apparently bloodied Babolat tennis bag (which defendant described) was the
same used in the murder of Lloyd with spent shell casings left at Boost. DNA from Parker was
discovered on Lloyd and DNA from Lloyd was discovered on Parker, confirming their struggle
as described by Norfleet and Williams. Norfleet and Williams testified in a manner that was
largely consistent as to the crimes. And, video surveillance confirmed defendant’s presence
and/or that of the same white Lincoln at businesses near Boost both before and around the time
of the crimes on the day in question.
¶ 45 Based on this evidence, the jury reasonably could have concluded that, using his
girlfriend as a pawn, defendant cased the telephone store for the purposes of committing the
armed robbery and acted in concert with his criminal cohort, conveying this information and then
engaging in the armed robbery that led to Lloyd’s demise. See Perez, 189 Ill. 2d at 266; People
v. Craigen, 2013 IL App (2d) 111300, ¶ 36; People v. Ivory, 333 Ill. App. 3d 505, 511 (2002).
The jury also reasonably could have concluded that defendant remained in the vehicle for fear
that Williams would recognize him and that Parker wore a mask during the armed robbery for
that reason, while Carter did not. As the trial court determined at sentencing, the above-stated
16 No. 1-21-1545
evidence supported a finding that defendant played a major role in the armed robbery and bodily
harm inflicted on Lloyd. See Perez, 189 Ill. 2d at 268 (a defendant must intentionally aid or
encourage the crime’s commission for guilt to attach); In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d 307, 338 (1995)
(“accountability may be established through a person’s knowledge of and participation in the
criminal scheme, even though there is no evidence that he directly participated in the criminal act
itself”); People v. Velez, 388 Ill. App. 3d 493, 514 (2009) (a party may be accountable with some
advanced knowledge of the criminal plan).
¶ 46 Defendant nonetheless claims that Williams’ testimony was incredible due to her bias
and motive to testify falsely against him. We reject this contention out of hand. Williams’
potential bias as a jealous girlfriend (due to defendant’s multiple paramours) was fully explored
at trial. Williams’ supposition — upon realizing that Parker was the armed robber — that
defendant had to be involved in the crime was also reasonable given that defendant spent a great
deal of time in Boost with Williams and then sent his brother, whom Williams’ barely knew, to
do his dirty work. It was for the jury in this instance to evaluate Williams’ credibility and the
weight to accord the evidence. See Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill 2d at 228 (a reviewing court will not
reverse a conviction simply because the defendant claims that a witness was not credible);
People v. Nesbit, 398 Ill. App. 3d 200, 209 (2010).
¶ 47 Defendant also challenges the believability of his videotaped admissions. He points to
the malfunctioning video equipment and insists, contrary to the officer’s testimony at trial, that
police promised he could go home only if he provided an inculpatory statement. He contends his
brother Cornelius instead told him all the details of the crime, and he was not involved. This, too,
was fully explored before the jury. Again, it is the jury’s job, not ours, to determine witness
credibility, weigh evidence, and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See id. Also, a trier of fact
17 No. 1-21-1545
need not accept any possible explanation compatible with the defendant’s innocence and elevate
it to the status of reasonable doubt. Id. at 229. We note that the total evidence, including
defendant’s relationship with Williams and the video surveillance, contradicts defendant’s claim
that his inculpatory statements were incredible. We also have reviewed the video evidence of
defendant’s statements in full, and it is consistent with the officer’s testimony that the equipment
inadvertently quit working. Indeed, in the third interview, the officer noted he had a problem
with the video and requested that defendant repeat his story once again. Moreover, on appeal,
defendant does not challenge the denial of his motion to suppress, which focused on this issue. 4
We thus reject his back-door approach to attacking his admissions under the sufficiency of the
evidence. For all these reasons, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails.
¶ 48 Sentencing
¶ 49 Last, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to 33
years’ imprisonment. The sentence for armed robbery, a Class X offense, is 6 to 30 years. See
720 ILCS 5/18-2 (West 2014); 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2014). In addition, defendant was
subject to a mandatory 15-year add-on for having inflicted great bodily harm on the victim via a
firearm. Id. Defendant now argues that with his minimal criminal background, community
support, and expressions of remorse and rehabilitation, he should have received a lesser sentence.
We disagree.
¶ 50 The sentencing decisions of a trial court are entitled to great deference and weight
because a trial judge is in a far better position to fashion an appropriate sentence after
considering a defendant’s credibility, demeanor, moral character, mentality, social environment,
4 In rejecting defendant’s motion to suppress statements, the court expressly found the video cut short unintentionally, and there was no foul play by police. The court further found police did not make any promises to defendant outside his custodial interrogation that was recorded.
18 No. 1-21-1545
habits, age, and other relevant factors. People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 53 (1999); People v. Cox,
377 Ill. App. 3d 690, 709 (2007). A sentence within the statutory guidelines is presumptively
correct, and a trial court’s sentencing decision will not be disturbed, absent an abuse of
discretion. People v. Knox, 2014 IL App (1st) 120349, ¶ 46; Cox, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 709.
¶ 51 During the sentencing hearing, the court carefully considered the letters offered in
support of the defense and the State, defendant’s presentence investigation report, defendant’s
elocution, and the required sentencing factors. The court noted various mitigating factors,
including defendant’s abusive childhood, his educational progress, family situation, and lack of
adult criminal history.5 The court also noted various aggravating factors, including defendant’s
advanced casing of the store, acquisition of the gun with Parker, and knowledge of the armed
robbery. The court concluded that defendant played a “major role” in the armed robbery. Given
the seriousness of the offense, which resulted in great bodily harm inflicted on Lloyd, the fact
that the court believed such conduct could occur in the future, and the matter of deterrence, the
court sentenced defendant to 18 years for the armed robbery, plus the 15-year mandatory add-on,
for a total of 33 years. See Cox, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 709 (noting, the seriousness of the crime is
the most important factor in fashioning a sentence).
¶ 52 While defendant now points to evidence demonstrating his rehabilitative potential,
reformation, and remorse, he omits that during his incarceration in county jail he committed a
number of infractions that contradicted his claim of reformation. Regardless, a trial court is not
required to give greater weight to a defendant’s rehabilitative potential than to the seriousness of
5 We note that at sentencing, the State expressly said it was not relying on defendant’s juvenile offenses (which included theft, giving false information, and unauthorized use of a vehicle) and asked the court not to consider them. There is no indication the court did so. Instead, the court stated, “the defendant has no prior history of criminal activity that applies.” We thus disregard defendant’s focus on those juvenile offenses in his brief.
19 No. 1-21-1545
the offense. People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 214 (2010). Likewise, it was the court’s job to
evaluate defendant’s credibility and that of those who spoke on his behalf. Apparently, the court
did not believe defendant’s claims of total reformation. See Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 53.
¶ 53 Here, in balancing the society’s interests against defendant’s rehabilitative ability, as
required, the court issued an eminently reasonable sentence. It was exactly in the middle of the
minimum (21 years) and maximum (45 years) allowed, and consistent with the evidence
presented, the nature of the offense, and the law. See People v. Boyd, 2021 IL App (1st) 182584,
¶ 88; Cox, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 709; see also Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 54 (“A sentence within statutory
limits will not be deemed excessive unless it is greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of
the law or manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense”); cf. People v. Margentina,
261 Ill. App. 3d 247, 250 (1994) (finding the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the
defendant to over twice the minimum given that the defendant was a teenager from an abusive
home when he murdered a man who had provoked him with harassing conduct). Moreover,
neither party disputes that defendant must serve the sentence at 85 percent, making his sentence
potentially closer to 28 years. We decline defendant’s invitation to reweigh the sentencing
factors and conclude there was no abuse of discretion. See Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 214.
¶ 54 CONCLUSION
¶ 55 For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 56 Affirmed.