After hearing the testimony and the arguments of counsel, the court denied defendant's motion, finding that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant and that defendant's statements were not coerced by the police, but rather were voluntarily given. 493, 564 N.E.2d 1155 (1990). His statement to the assistant State's Attorney, transcribed by a court reporter, was simply what the police told him to say. On September 16, 1997 just one year before Lisa Raye made her debut in The Players Club and during the height of Da Brats multiplatinum selling career- their dads girlfriend, Sheila Daniels, was officially convicted AGAIN for his murder. See also People v. Watts (1992), 226 Ill.App.3d 519, 168 Ill.Dec. 154, 704 N.E.2d 727 (1998). All rights reserved. Anthony was bruised and bloody, apparently as a result of having been beaten. Sheila Daniels, 41, first convicted in 1990, was. Clearly, defense counsel was aware of the applicable law concerning accountability and presented a defense based on that law, not on any "misapprehension" of it. 9-1(a)), armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.) David was found dead in 1988 in the back seat of his car. See e.g., People v. Lee, 319 Ill.App.3d 289, 307, 253 Ill.Dec. at 2351, 147 L.Ed.2d at 442. The trial court responded that the records were not available and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. 2052, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.) The proffered testimony of Tyrone and Anthony was included with the motion, substantiating the allegations of abuse contained in defendant's motion. In the instant case, defendant's discovery requests are much broader than those in Hinton. She alleged that police informed her that they would continue beating Tyrone and might even subject her to physical cruelty unless she made admissions relating to her involvement in McCoy's murder. Despite the presence of this fact, which was known to defendant at her first trial, she did not assert it as a reason for suppression before Judge Toomin. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. Defendant also argues that Judge Urso should have held a hearing on her motion to suppress based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. The State appealed the suppression order, but only challenged the standard that the trial court applied. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. Lisa Raye (best known to us old schoolers as Diamond in the Players Club) and rapper, Da Brat, are biological sisters with the same father, David Ray McCoy. Under the harmless error analysis, the burden is upon the State to prove that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error to avoid reversal. Our supreme court found that without some evidence that the defendant was injured, evidence of the treatment of other suspects could not, by itself, be the basis for an evidentiary hearing. In reliance upon Cannon, Patterson and King, defendant argues the OPS report constitutes new evidence, entitling her to a hearing on her reoffered amended motion to suppress. Father of actress LisaRaye McCoy. Ill. Rev.Stat.1985, ch. In response, the City moved to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that the materials requested were irrelevant and confidential and that the subpoenas were the result of speculative fishing expeditions. Alternatively, the City requested an in camera inspection of the documents and the issuance of a protective order in the event the subpoenas were not quashed. Prior to his trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress claiming statements he had given police were the result of police torture. In Daniels I, defendant argued, inter alia, that Judge Toomin had erred in denying her motion to suppress statements. 300, 631 N.E.2d 303 (1994). People v. Daniels, 272 Ill.App.3d 325, 208 Ill.Dec. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 387 [206 Ill.Dec. 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1(a)(4), (a)(8) (West 1996). Defendant admitted this but said that her brother Anthony had stolen it from her and she gave the detectives his address. In People v. Patterson, 192 Ill.2d 93, 249 Ill.Dec. There, our supreme court reversed the defendant's murder conviction based on the prosecutor's improper cross-examination. At that time, he had a girlfriend named Shiela Daniels. He initially told the police that he did not know anything about the death of McCoy. In an amended postconviction petition, the defendant argued the existence of new evidence, that being the OPS report, warranted a hearing on his petition. Categories . A proper foundation is necessary for the admission of hospital records. 12, 751 N.E.2d 65 (2001). Although the OPS report citing police misconduct at Area 2 has been brought to light since the time defendant and her brothers were questioned there, that does not alter the fact that defendant did not raise the issue of police brutality as a basis for suppression until years later. Defendant acknowledges that the support for his contention is not contained in the record, but he raises the error "so as to present defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in it's (sic) proper perspective," promising to file a post-conviction petition raising this issue. McCoys then 32 year old live-in girlfriend of 10 years, Sheila Daniels, and her then 20 year old brother, Tyrone, were convicted of McCoys murder in 1990. Hobley subsequently filed a postconviction petition alleging that he had newly discovered evidence of police brutality at Area 2. During the trial, the court was presented with transcripts of testimony from several witnesses in Sheila Daniels' jury trial. The court ordered an in camera inspection of records naming officers in relevant police reports, who had complaints of physical abuse or civil lawsuits for abuse filed against them. See 188 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7); People v. Madej, 177 Ill.2d 116, 162, 226 Ill.Dec. Defendant then asked to see his sister, who was brought into the room. (See People v. Majer (1985), 131 Ill.App.3d 80, 86 Ill.Dec. A South Side woman has been convicted for the second time of killing millionaire David Ray McCoy, her live-in boyfriend, in 1988. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). The State argued that the doctrine of law of the case barred a subsequent hearing on defendant's motion. Sheila then left the room and Cummings interviewed defendant again. Although he was doing nothing illegal, defendant was then placed under arrest. The fact that Lt. Cline was of the opinion that defendant was not under arrest and not in custody does not alter the fact that Judge Toomin applied the proper test and concluded that her admissions to police were admissible. Without evidence of injury, it was not error to exclude the prior allegations of abuse. In making this determination, the Supreme Court stated that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. David McCoy (pictured in a framed photo in the above pic of Lisa Raye) was found shot to death on November 12, 1988 in the back seat of his Cadillac, which was parked in a Southside Chicago alley. On November 4, 1988, after receiving reports of an abandoned car blocking an alley, police discovered the body of David Ray McCoy, lying face up with three gunshot wounds to the head, in the back seat of his car. 267, 480 N.E.2d 153 (1985). 604, 645 N.E.2d 856 (1994). Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-89, 104 S.Ct. In an unpublished portion of the opinion issued by this court on June 28, 2002, we vacated the defendant's 80-year extended term sentence based on the trial court's finding that the offense was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty, we remanded the case for re-sentencing. This court has consistently held that in cases where the defendants received an extended term of imprisonment pursuant to section 5-5-3.2(b)(2), the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. In reliance upon testimony from a police officer that the defendant was not in custody until the officer's suspicions focused on the defendant, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and the California Supreme Court affirmed. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Following an investigation and attempts to trace the gun, police spoke with, and later arrested, Sheila Daniels, defendant's sister. In her motion to suppress filed before her first trial and in the first motion to suppress filed with Judge Urso, defendant said nothing about Anthony's beaten condition as being a reason for her inculpatory statements. See M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence 602.1, at 369 (7th ed.1999). Based on that statement, she considered him to be her attorney. Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 332, 208 Ill.Dec. She also asserted that incriminating statements she had given investigators were made in the absence of Miranda warnings and resulted from prolonged questioning and refusals by police to allow her to contact her attorney and family, which was a violation of her fifth and sixth amendment rights. The court in Taylor held that once a suppression order is entered, it may be reconsidered or appealed, but a second hearing on the merits may not be held. There is no question that a criminal defendant's prerogative to testify at his own trial is a fundamental right; the question of the exercise of that right is thus not a matter of a strategic or tactical decision best left to trial counsel. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117. See Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. The trial court denied admission of the records. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001) and People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352, 272 Ill.Dec. However, this court, presented as it is with a record containing no support for defendant's assertion, must resolve the question against him. The trial court's decision not to revisit a matter previously litigated in reliance upon the law of the case doctrine will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. 1, 670 N.E.2d 679 (1996), the defendant similarly alleged that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition because of newly discovered evidence regarding Area 2 which disclosed a pattern of brutality directed at suspects in custody. 312, 556 N.E.2d 1214. The constitutionally guaranteed right of effective assistance of counsel has not been provided if defendant can prove that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's shortcomings "were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial." After Sheila left, defendant decided to cooperate with the police; however, he was still not advised of his constitutional rights. At 11:40 p.m., defendant was advised of her Miranda rights and agreed to take a polygraph exam, which lasted about 21/212 hours. The trial court found that the defendant waived the issue of his allegedly coerced confession by failing to raise it on direct appeal. The supreme court affirmed this denial, stating, The defendant could have raised these arguments in his first appeal, and his failure to do so justified the trial court's refusal to reconsider its rulings, under principles of collateral estoppel. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 386, 206 Ill.Dec. See People v. Majer, (1985), 131 Ill.App.3d 80, 86 Ill.Dec. See People v. Golden, 342 Ill.App.3d 820, 277 Ill.Dec. While this court in Daniels I did not provide an analysis of our holding affirming the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress based on fifth and sixth amendment grounds, we certainly addressed the legal issue raised by defendant and we rejected it. memorial page for David Ray McCoy (6 Mar 1935-13 Nov 1988), Find a Grave Memorial ID 52651554, citing Cedar Park Cemetery, Calumet Park . olivia rodrigo birth chart Contact me. 98. David Ray McCoy was an American businessman and millionaire. After discussing the fourth amendment issue, Judge Toomin continued: The other ground that the court notes from the motion is centered in both the 5th and 6th Amendments alleging a denial of her right to have an opportunity to consult with counsel, coupled with repeated questioning of her over a long period of time during which she was allegedly held incommunicad [o] *** and also that her will was overborne and she was impliedly coerced by the detective involved here., After a very lengthy recitation of defendant's testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Judge Toomin specifically said that defendant testified she was questioned repeatedly, though she asked to call Edward Vrdolyak [sic] who she considered to be her attorney..