Defendant Loses Appeal for Attempted Murder, Aggravated Battery
An Illinois appellate court considered whether the evidence established intent to kill, whether defense counsel had a per se conflict of interest, and whether multiple convictions violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine.
In People v. Small, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District reviewed convictions arising from a violent domestic altercation. Franklin L. Small Jr. was convicted following a bench trial of attempted murder and aggravated domestic battery after his wife testified that he repeatedly cut her with a knife, threatened to kill her, and stomped on her face. On appeal, Small argued that the State had failed to prove his intent to kill, that his privately retained defense attorney had a per se conflict of interest, and that the one-act, one-crime doctrine barred both convictions.
Case: People v. Small, 2023 IL App (5th) 220370-U
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District
Decision: May 5, 2023
Important: The decision was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by that rule.
What Happened in People v. Small?
The case arose from a June 17, 2014 domestic incident involving Small and his wife, Adelle Small. The State alleged that Small arrived at the business where Adelle was working, obtained a large hunting knife, entered the building, and attacked her.
According to the evidence presented at trial, Small cut Adelle multiple times, including cuts to her head, chin, arm, elbow, and finger. He also stomped on her face. Adelle testified that Small repeatedly threatened to kill her and, during the attack, told her, “I’m gonna fucking kill you.”
Adelle survived the attack and received emergency medical treatment, including staples and stitches. She testified at trial about the attack, and the State also presented photographs, medical evidence, police testimony, and other evidence concerning the injuries and the scene.
Attempted Murder
Small was charged with attempted first-degree murder based on allegations that he acted with the intent to kill Adelle.
Aggravated Domestic Battery
The second count alleged that Small repeatedly struck and cut Adelle, causing serious injuries.
Bench Trial
After initially requesting a jury trial, Small ultimately proceeded to a bench trial before the circuit court.
Did the State Prove Intent to Kill?
One of Small’s principal arguments on appeal was that the State had not proved the specific intent required for attempted murder.
To sustain an attempted murder conviction, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant took a substantial step toward committing murder and possessed the criminal intent to kill the victim. Intent is ordinarily established through the surrounding circumstances rather than through direct evidence of a defendant’s state of mind.
How Can Intent Be Proven?
Illinois courts may consider the character of the assault, the nature and seriousness of the injuries, statements made by the defendant, the weapon used, and the surrounding circumstances when determining whether intent to kill can be inferred.
The appellate court found the evidence sufficient in Small’s case. The evidence showed that Small repeatedly threatened to kill Adelle while holding a large hunting knife. He grabbed her hair, pulled her head backward, and brought the knife toward the front of her neck.
The court concluded that the evidence allowed the trial judge to infer that Small was attempting to slash Adelle’s throat. The attack was interrupted when Adelle tried to protect herself and ultimately pretended to be dead. The court also considered Small’s later statement telling Adelle to “take [her] last breath” while he stomped on her face.
The Victim Survived the Attack
The fact that Adelle survived did not prevent the State from proving attempted murder. The appellate court explained that Small’s failure to complete the killing did not eliminate the evidence of his intent to kill.
What Is a Per Se Conflict of Interest?
Small also argued that his defense attorney had a per se conflict of interest that required his convictions to be vacated.
A per se conflict exists when specific facts about a defense attorney’s status create a disabling conflict without requiring the defendant to show that the conflict actually affected counsel’s performance. The Illinois Supreme Court has identified three circumstances in which a per se conflict may arise.
Connection to the Prosecution
Defense counsel has a prior or contemporaneous association with the victim, the prosecution, or an entity assisting the prosecution.
Representation of a State Witness
Defense counsel contemporaneously represents a witness who is being called by the prosecution.
Former Prosecutor in the Same Case
Defense counsel previously served as a prosecutor and was personally involved in the prosecution of the same defendant in the same criminal proceeding.
Why Did Small Claim His Attorney Had a Conflict?
Small’s argument centered on his attorney’s prior work for the State. His attorney had appeared on behalf of the State at an arraignment in one of Small’s prior criminal cases in 2008.
Small argued that this prior involvement created a per se conflict because evidence from that earlier case was later used for impeachment purposes in the current prosecution.
The appellate court rejected the argument. The court explained that the attorney had merely appeared for the State at the prior arraignment and had not prosecuted Small in that earlier case. More importantly, the attorney had never been involved in prosecuting Small in the current case.
What the Court Found
The appellate court concluded that the attorney’s prior appearance for the State did not create a per se conflict because he was not involved in prosecuting Small in the current proceeding and there was no evidence that he had a conflicting connection to a person or entity that would benefit from an unfavorable outcome for Small.
What Is a Krankel Hearing?
After the trial, Small raised allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that he had not communicated with his attorney for much of the eight months before trial, that counsel had not reviewed the police report with him, and that counsel failed to investigate or present information and witnesses that Small believed would support his defense.
Illinois courts use a Krankel inquiry when a defendant makes a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against the attorney representing the defendant. The purpose is to give the trial court an opportunity to examine the defendant’s allegations and determine whether they show possible neglect of the case or instead concern matters of trial strategy.
The Defendant Raises a Claim
A defendant brings a pro se complaint alleging ineffective assistance by current counsel.
The Court Reviews the Allegations
The court determines whether the allegations show possible neglect or involve matters of trial strategy.
Further Proceedings May Follow
If the allegations show possible neglect, the court may appoint new counsel to investigate the claim further.
In Small’s case, the trial court held an informal Krankel hearing and concluded that his complaints lacked merit and primarily concerned matters of trial strategy.
Did the One-Act, One-Crime Doctrine Apply?
Small also argued that his attempted murder and aggravated domestic battery convictions were based on the same physical conduct and therefore violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine.
The doctrine generally prohibits multiple convictions when they are based on the same physical act. When a defendant commits multiple physical acts, however, separate convictions may be permissible unless one offense is a lesser-included offense of another.
The Question for the Court
The appellate court had to determine whether the evidence and charging instruments treated Small’s conduct as one physical act or as multiple separate acts supporting the two convictions.
The court concluded that multiple acts were charged and proven. The attempted murder count focused on Small’s effort to cut Adelle’s throat and the evidence of his intent to kill her. The aggravated domestic battery count was supported by the other injuries, including additional cuts and blows that caused serious bodily injury.
The appellate court therefore held that the one-act, one-crime doctrine was not violated.
Why the Distinction Mattered
The court did not simply look at whether a knife was used throughout the encounter. It examined how the charges, evidence, arguments, and trial court’s findings treated the individual acts and injuries supporting each conviction.
The Appellate Court Did Modify the Sentence
Although the appellate court affirmed Small’s convictions, it did not leave every part of the sentence unchanged.
The trial court had sentenced Small to seven years for attempted murder and six years for aggravated domestic battery. Those sentences were ordered to run consecutively to each other and to a separate sentence from Moultrie County arising from the same overall incident.
On appeal, the State conceded that the aggravated domestic battery sentence should not have been ordered to run consecutively to the Moultrie County sentence because neither sentence constituted a triggering offense requiring consecutive sentencing under the applicable statute.
The six-year aggravated domestic battery sentence was ordered to run concurrent with the Moultrie County sentence.
What Did the Illinois Appellate Court Decide?
Intent to Kill
The evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find that Small intended to kill Adelle.
Per Se Conflict
Defense counsel’s prior appearance for the State in a different case did not create a per se conflict in this prosecution.
One-Act, One-Crime
The convictions were based on multiple acts and therefore did not violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine.
Final Result
The Fifth District affirmed the attempted murder and aggravated domestic battery convictions but modified the sentence so that the aggravated domestic battery sentence would run concurrently with the Moultrie County sentence.
Why People v. Small Matters in Illinois Criminal Appeals
People v. Small demonstrates how appellate courts evaluate several common issues in Illinois criminal cases. The State may establish intent to kill through circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s statements and the nature of the attack. A claimed per se conflict of interest requires facts falling within the specific categories recognized by Illinois law. And the one-act, one-crime doctrine requires courts to examine the individual physical acts supporting each conviction.
The case also shows that an appeal can produce a mixed result. The appellate court affirmed Small’s convictions while nevertheless modifying part of his sentence after determining that the aggravated domestic battery sentence should not have been ordered consecutive to the separate Moultrie County sentence.
Talk to a Champaign, IL Criminal Defense Attorney
Criminal appeals can involve complicated questions about the sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, conflicts of interest, sentencing, and the one-act, one-crime doctrine. The issues that can be raised on appeal depend on the facts of the case and what happened in the trial court.
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents who are facing criminal charges or challenging criminal convictions. Our Champaign criminal lawyers can help you understand the issues in your case and discuss your available legal options.
Facing a Criminal Appeal in Illinois?
Talk with a Champaign criminal defense lawyer about your conviction and appellate options.
Source
