People v. Vincent

2024 IL App (2d) 230493-U

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Vincent. Read the opinion of the Court — 2024 IL App (4th) 240218 →

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided November 14, 2024·No. 2-23-0493·Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (2d) 230493-U No. 2-23-0493 Order filed November 14, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of De Kalb County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 19-CM-635 ) DAVID J. VINCENT, ) Honorable ) Joseph C. Pedersen, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Kennedy and Mullen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Because the trial court failed to inquire into the factual basis of defendant’s posttrial claim that his attorneys were ineffective, we remand for the court to make that inquiry.

¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant, David J. Vincent, was found guilty of two counts of

domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2018)) and one count of interfering with

the reporting of domestic violence (id. § 12-3.5(a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 18

months of conditional discharge and 60 days in jail, with credit for 60 days already served.

Defendant timely appealed. Defendant contends that, because the trial court failed to inquire into 2024 IL App (2d) 230493-U

defendant’s posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as required under People v.

Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the matter must be remanded for a proper inquiry. We agree and,

thus, we remand.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On July 25, 2019, defendant was charged with domestic battery (based on bodily harm)

(720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2018)), domestic battery (based on insulting or provoking contact)

(id. § 12-3.2(a)(2)), and interfering with the reporting of domestic violence (id. § 12-3.5(a)). The

victim was defendant’s girlfriend, Lona Rowland.

¶5 A jury trial took place on May 15, 2023. Two assistant public defenders—Brian Crowley

and Mary Baccam—represented defendant. The following evidence was presented.

¶6 Rowland, 26 years old, testified that, on July 23 and 24, 2019, she lived in a Genoa

apartment with defendant. They had begun dating in June 2017 and moved in together six months

later. Their relationship ended in January 2021. According to Rowland, during the evening of

July 23, 2019, she and defendant argued before she left for work. Defendant “was hitting [her]

with a pillow, and [she] couldn’t tell if he was joking, so [she] walked over to [defendant] to take

the pillow away, and *** he struck [her] in the face and broke [her] glasses.” Defendant then hit

her with “a closed fist.” She was “in disbelief, and [she] really couldn’t react too much because

[she] had to go to work.” While at work, she texted with defendant, arguing over what had

happened.

¶7 Rowland testified that her work shift ended at 6 a.m. the following day. She arrived home

and saw a note that defendant had left, stating that he had removed the “cone” that she had put on

their dog because the dog was scratching its neck. Defendant was not home at the time. Rowland

wrote “eat shit” on the note and went to bed. She was almost asleep when defendant entered the

-2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230493-U

room and “started striking [her] in the arm.” Defendant was hitting her with his fist while holding

the note. He hit her “[a] couple times.” Defendant walked into the kitchen, and Rowland followed

him. They “started arguing and just yelling at each other.” Defendant pushed Rowland into a door

and struck her in the face multiple times. “[Defendant] punched [her] in the face, punched [her]

in [her] ear, and then he put both hands on [her] and started choking [her].” She could “[b]arely”

breathe. Rowland told defendant that she was going to call the police. Defendant ran into their

bedroom and proceeded to “break [her] phone” by repeatedly “smashing” it with fingernail

clippers. She tried to get her phone from defendant, and they began “tussling on the floor with the

phone.” Defendant “stood up, grabbed [her] by [her] hair, and start [sic] dragging [her] across the

room.” When she let go of the phone, defendant let go of her. Rowland could not hear out of her

left ear, and the side of her face was red and swollen. She had rug burns on her knees and scratches

on her elbow and shoulder.

¶8 Rowland testified that, after defendant let her go, she grabbed her car keys and phone and

ran out of the house. She was not wearing shoes. She could not call 911 because her phone was

broken. People’s exhibit No. 1, which Rowland identified as a photograph of her cell phone with

its “shattered” screen, was admitted into evidence. Rowland drove to the Genoa police station,

but it was closed. On the premises was an emergency phone, which Rowland used to call 911. A

recording of her phone call, admitted as People’s exhibit No. 2, was played for the jury. After the

call, EMTs and a police officer arrived. Rowland made a written statement.

¶9 Rowland testified that she next saw defendant three days later. She continued her

relationship with him because she “felt bad” that she “got him in trouble.” She “thought that [she]

should have took [sic] the blame, that it was *** [her] fault.” During the incident, she never hit

defendant or acted like she would hit him.

-3- 2024 IL App (2d) 230493-U

¶ 10 On cross-examination, Rowland agreed that, during the 911 call, she did not mention that

defendant choked her or pulled her hair and she stated that she did not have any blood on her. She

did not go to the hospital. She agreed that she told the investigating officer about the note she left

for defendant. She further acknowledged that she was angry with defendant when she spoke to

the officer. Defense counsel showed Rowland a copy of her written statement. She further agreed

that she wrote in the statement that she was “giving [defendant] shit for not touching [her]” and

that she was “half joking but half not” when she said this to defendant. Rowland denied that she

suspected defendant was cheating on her. She also acknowledged that she wrote in the statement

that she “charged at [defendant]” when he was hitting her with the pillow. She agreed that she

followed defendant into the kitchen the next morning to “confront him.” However, she did not

charge at him in the kitchen.

¶ 11 On redirect examination, Rowland stated that, when she “charged” at defendant, she

intended to take the pillow from him, not to hit him. She clarified that, when she said that she was

upset about defendant not touching her, she meant “sexually.”

¶ 12 Zachary Wright testified that he was working in Genoa as a firefighter/paramedic on the

morning of the incident. He was dispatched to the Genoa police station, where he encountered

Rowland. She was not wearing shoes. She “had redness on the left side of her face, around her

ear, as well as a few abrasions to her body.” She complained of “muffled hearing.” Rowland

reported that “she had been assaulted by her boyfriend” and that “her boyfriend had broken her

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI