Defendant Charged with Aggravated Battery of a Police Officer Denied Appeal
The Fifth District held that an allegedly unlawful arrest did not excuse resisting a police officer or battering an officer performing official duties.
In People v. Brock, 2023 IL App (5th) 220396-U, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of Michael Brock’s post-conviction petition. Brock had been convicted of aggravated battery of a peace officer and resisting a police officer after an altercation with an officer inside his father’s home.
Brock argued that the police officer had no authority to pursue him into the residence and that his arrest was therefore unlawful. He also argued that evidence concerning his resistance should have been excluded as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The appellate court rejected those arguments, explaining that Illinois law does not permit a person to use force to resist an arrest merely because the person believes the arrest is unlawful.
The Fifth District also rejected Brock’s ineffective-assistance claims. The court noted that several of the issues could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore were forfeited, and it further determined that the claims lacked substantive merit.
Quick Answer
The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Brock’s post-conviction petition. The appellate court held that the legality of the arrest did not provide a defense to resisting the arrest or to aggravated battery of the peace officer. The court also explained that evidence of the defendant’s own criminal conduct is not excluded under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine merely because the conduct occurred in response to allegedly unlawful police action.
The Charges Against Michael Brock
Michael Brock was charged in St. Clair County with aggravated battery of a peace officer and resisting a police officer. The resisting count alleged that Brock resisted being arrested by Officer Kurt Schmulbach.
The case arose after Officers Schmulbach and Cameron Rettig responded to an incident at a residence in Lebanon, Illinois. After speaking with two men at the scene, the officers believed Brock and another man, Brandon Harris, were involved in the underlying incident.
The officers went to a nearby residence looking for Brock. Brock’s father, Jack Brock, answered the door and initially told the officers that his son was not home.
Aggravated Battery
Brock was charged with aggravated battery of a peace officer based on physical contact with Officer Schmulbach.
Resisting
The State alleged that Brock knowingly resisted Officer Schmulbach while the officer was attempting to arrest him.
Sentence
The circuit court ultimately sentenced Brock to five years and six months in prison.
What Happened at Brock’s Father’s House?
As Officers Schmulbach and Rettig were preparing to leave the residence, they heard Jack Brock yelling at someone inside the house. The officers returned to the residence, and Schmulbach heard Brock’s voice through an open window.
Schmulbach called for Brock to come to the door. Brock did so, and the officer told him that he was a person of interest in the investigation. When Schmulbach asked Brock to come to the police station for questioning, Brock fled farther into the house.
Schmulbach pursued Brock into the residence. According to the officer’s testimony, he repeatedly told Brock that he was under arrest. The two eventually became involved in a physical struggle in the kitchen.
During the struggle, Schmulbach testified that Brock punched him in the nose. Brock was eventually subdued after Officer Rettig used a taser.
The Defense Presented a Different Account
Brock’s father testified that he had told the officers they needed a warrant to enter the home. He also testified that he did not see Brock punch Schmulbach and believed the officer’s nose was bloodied when Brock reflexively moved while another officer was using the taser.
Brock’s Attempt to Challenge the Arrest
Before trial, Brock attempted to file a pro se motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence. He argued that the arrest was illegal and that evidence concerning his resistance should therefore be excluded as the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Brock’s defense attorney declined to argue the pro se motion. The State then filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent Brock from introducing evidence or argument concerning the legality of the arrest. The State argued that the legality of the arrest was irrelevant to the charged offenses.
The circuit court granted the State’s motion. As a result, the question of whether the officers had legal authority to enter the residence was not litigated as a defense to the criminal charges at trial.
Important Distinction
The appellate court did not hold that every police entry into a home without a warrant is lawful. Instead, it held that even if the arrest was unlawful, that did not give Brock a legal defense to using force against the officer during the arrest.
The Prior Felony Convictions Were Never Presented to the Jury
The State also sought permission to use three of Brock’s prior felony convictions for impeachment if Brock decided to testify. The defense opposed the State’s request and argued that the convictions would be particularly prejudicial because of their similarity to the charges being tried.
The circuit court allowed the State to use the convictions for impeachment purposes if Brock testified. Brock ultimately chose not to testify, however, so the prior convictions were never introduced before the jury.
Brock later claimed that his attorney was ineffective for failing to prevent the State from using the convictions. The appellate court rejected the claim because the record showed that defense counsel actually opposed the State’s motion both orally and in writing. The court also found no prejudice because Brock never testified and the convictions were never introduced.
The Jury Convicted Brock
At trial, Officer Schmulbach testified that Brock was actively fighting with him when Brock punched him in the nose. The officer also testified that he had repeatedly told Brock that he was under arrest.
Jack Brock provided testimony favorable to the defense, disputing that he saw his son punch the officer. The jury nevertheless found Brock guilty of aggravated battery of a peace officer and resisting a police officer.
The court sentenced Brock to five years and six months in prison. Brock’s direct appeal challenged only the length of his sentence, and the Fifth District affirmed that judgment in People v. Brock, 2022 IL App (5th) 200179-U.
YEARS
Sentence
Brock received a five-year, six-month prison sentence following his convictions for aggravated battery of a peace officer and resisting a police officer.
The Post-Conviction Petition
After his direct appeal, Brock filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his defense attorney had been ineffective in several respects.
Brock alleged that counsel had been ineffective for refusing to argue the motion challenging his arrest, failing to adequately contest the State’s effort to use his prior convictions, and failing to argue that the allegedly illegal arrest required suppression of evidence concerning his resistance.
Brock also submitted an affidavit asserting that the officers had lied about what occurred during the confrontation, including the allegation that he punched Schmulbach.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition. The Fifth District later affirmed that decision.
Why the Arrest Issue Did Not Excuse the Resistance
The Fifth District’s analysis turned in part on the distinction between the Illinois resisting statute and the aggravated-battery statute.
Under 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a), a person commits resisting or obstructing when the person knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by a person known to be a peace officer of an authorized act within the officer’s official capacity.
Illinois law also provides in 720 ILCS 5/7-7 that a person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest that the person knows is being made by a peace officer, even if the person believes the arrest is unlawful and the arrest is in fact unlawful.
Resisting Arrest
Illinois law generally does not permit a person to use force against an officer merely because the person believes the arrest is unlawful.
Aggravated Battery
For aggravated battery of a peace officer, the statute focuses on whether the officer was performing official duties, rather than whether every aspect of the officer’s conduct was constitutionally permissible.
The Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree Argument
Brock also argued that evidence of his conduct during the confrontation should have been excluded under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine because the police allegedly entered the residence unlawfully.
The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine generally concerns the exclusion of evidence obtained through unlawful government conduct. The Fifth District relied on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d 368 (1992), which rejected using the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence of a defendant’s own criminal conduct merely because that conduct occurred in response to allegedly unlawful police conduct.
The appellate court explained that allowing a defendant to use the exclusionary rule to excuse an assault or resistance committed during an allegedly unlawful police action would improperly permit the criminal conduct itself to become a remedy for the alleged police misconduct.
What the Doctrine Did Not Do
The appellate court distinguished between suppressible evidence obtained because of unlawful police conduct and evidence of a new offense committed by the defendant during the encounter. Brock’s alleged punch and resistance were his own conduct, so the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine did not provide a basis for suppressing that conduct.
Officer’s Conduct and the Aggravated Battery Charge
The aggravated battery statute at issue was 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4)(i). It applies when a person commits a battery while knowing that the individual battered is a peace officer performing official duties.
The Fifth District emphasized that the statute refers to “official duties,” not an “authorized act.” The court therefore concluded that an officer may be performing official duties for purposes of aggravated battery even if the officer’s particular action is later alleged to have violated the defendant’s constitutional rights.
Officer Schmulbach testified that he was attempting to arrest Brock and repeatedly told Brock that he was under arrest when Brock punched him. The appellate court concluded that this evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated-battery conviction.
Officer Performing Official Duties
The statute requires the officer to be performing official duties when the aggravated battery occurs.
Knowledge
The defendant must know that the person being battered is a peace officer.
Battery
The State must establish the underlying battery as required by the aggravated-battery statute.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Brock’s post-conviction petition included several allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant must generally establish both deficient performance and resulting prejudice to succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim.
The Fifth District found that Brock’s claims failed for multiple reasons. Some claims were forfeited because they could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. Other claims were substantively meritless.
For example, the record showed that defense counsel actually opposed the State’s motion to use Brock’s prior felony convictions for impeachment. Brock also could not establish prejudice from the court’s ruling because he did not testify, meaning the State never introduced the prior convictions before the jury.
Two-Part Ineffective Assistance Test
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant generally must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance caused prejudice. Failure to establish either part of the test defeats the claim.
Post-Conviction Claims Must Be Properly Preserved
The Fifth District also emphasized the procedural rules governing Illinois post-conviction petitions. Issues that were decided on direct appeal are generally barred by res judicata, while issues that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not generally are forfeited.
Brock’s direct appeal challenged only his sentence. He did not challenge the legality of his arrest, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, or the effectiveness of his trial attorney. He also did not frame his later claims as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise those issues on direct appeal.
Because the post-conviction petition did not properly overcome those procedural barriers, the Fifth District affirmed its summary dismissal.
The Defendant’s Own Affidavit Was Not Newly Discovered Evidence
Brock attached an affidavit to his post-conviction petition in which he denied punching Officer Schmulbach and provided his own account of what happened during the confrontation.
The appellate court held that this did not constitute newly discovered evidence. Brock obviously knew his own version of the events at the time of trial, and his account largely mirrored the testimony already provided by his father at trial.
Illinois courts generally define newly discovered evidence as evidence discovered since the trial that could not have been discovered earlier through due diligence. Brock’s own later affidavit did not satisfy that standard.
What People v. Brock Means for Illinois Criminal Defense
People v. Brock, 2023 IL App (5th) 220396-U demonstrates that an alleged unlawful arrest does not necessarily invalidate subsequent criminal charges arising from the defendant’s own conduct during the encounter.
The decision also demonstrates the importance of raising constitutional and evidentiary issues at the appropriate stage of a criminal case. A defendant who waits until post-conviction proceedings to raise claims that could have been presented on direct appeal may face forfeiture.
The court’s ruling was also limited to the specific issues raised in Brock’s post-conviction petition. The Fifth District did not hold that police officers may enter a home without legal justification in every circumstance. Instead, it held that even assuming an unlawful arrest, that circumstance did not provide Brock with a defense to resisting the arrest or battering an officer performing official duties.
Rule 23 Decision
People v. Brock, 2023 IL App (5th) 220396-U was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).
Talk to an Illinois Criminal Defense Attorney Today
Criminal cases involving allegations of resisting arrest or aggravated battery of a police officer can raise complicated questions about probable cause, warrantless searches and entries, arrest authority, suppression motions, evidentiary rulings, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Patel Law, PC represents defendants charged with serious criminal offenses and defendants pursuing appeals and post-conviction relief. Our Decatur criminal defense lawyers can review the facts and procedural history of your case and explain the legal options that may be available.
Contact Patel Law, PC to schedule a consultation regarding your Illinois criminal case.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
People v. Brock, 2023 IL App (5th) 220396-U — Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
720 ILCS 5/31-1 — Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer
720 ILCS 5/7-7 — Use of Force in Resisting Arrest
720 ILCS 5/12-3.05 — Aggravated Battery
725 ILCS 5/122-1 — Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act
