Automated Summary
Key Facts
Dezzan D. Phillips was charged with robbery and domestic battery in La Salle County, Illinois. Following a jury trial in January 2024, he was found guilty of both counts. Phillips filed multiple motions for substitution of judge for cause, alleging bias and prejudice against Judge Cynthia Raccuglia. The court denied these motions, concluding they failed to allege sufficient grounds for substitution. Phillips also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, but the court rejected this claim after hearings. On August 29, 2024, Phillips was sentenced to concurrent 14-year and 6-year prison terms. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no error in the denial of substitution motions or sentencing.
Issues
- The first issue involves whether the February 22, 2024, motion for substitution of Judge Raccuglia met the statutory requirements under 725 ILCS 5/114-5(d), as the defendant claimed bias based on a JIB complaint, seeking information outside the record, and an incorrect legal standard when ruling on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court found these allegations insufficient and conclusory.
- The second issue examines whether the June 25, 2024, motion for substitution of Judge Raccuglia was valid, as the defendant argued bias stemming from a prior civil suit against her. The court concluded the civil complaint alone did not establish judicial bias under the law.
Holdings
- The court affirmed the denial of defendant's February 22, 2024, motion for substitution of judge, finding that the allegations of bias (filing a JIB complaint, seeking information outside the record, and applying an incorrect legal standard) were insufficient and conclusory. The court emphasized that a judge's adverse ruling alone does not establish prejudice, and defendant failed to provide specific evidence of judicial bias.
- The court affirmed the denial of defendant's June 25, 2024, motion for substitution of judge, concluding that his claim of bias based on a civil complaint against Judge Raccuglia was insufficient. The court cited precedent indicating that suing a judge does not automatically require substitution and noted the absence of specific allegations demonstrating prejudice.
Remedies
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, upholding the original sentences and procedural decisions in the case.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized that motions for substitution of judge for cause must allege specific, non-conclusory grounds demonstrating actual prejudice, such as animosity, hostility, ill will, or distrust towards the defendant. It held that a judge's adverse ruling alone is insufficient to establish bias, and a defendant's own actions (e.g., filing a JIB complaint or civil suit against the judge) cannot create a valid basis for substitution unless extrajudicial bias is shown. The trial judge may initially determine if a motion meets the threshold for referral to another judge.
Precedent Name
- People v. Barber
- People v. Vance
- People v. Patterson
- People v. Jones
- In re Estate of Wilson
- People v. Klein
- People v. Smeathers
Cited Statute
Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963
Judge Name
- Cynthia Raccuglia
- Michael C. Jansz
Passage Text
- We conclude the court properly denied the February 22, 2024, motion because it failed to allege sufficient grounds that would justify substitution for cause. First, defendant's basis that he filed a complaint against Judge Raccuglia with the JIB is insufficient alone as defendant was directly responsible for creating the alleged prejudice. See People v. Smeathers, 297 Ill. App. 3d 711, 716 (1998). Further, the allegation was conclusory as it failed to give any specific information about the complaint or how it may have provided cause for substitution beyond its face.
- In this motion, defendant claimed Judge Raccuglia was biased against him because he brought a civil complaint against her. He failed to elaborate any further. Not only is this statement conclusory but it is another instance where defendant's own action directly caused the alleged prejudice and, without more, failed to demonstrate cause for substitution. See People v. Patterson, 2023 IL App (4th) 230113-U, ¶ 45 (stating it is not uncommon for judges to be sued by disgruntled criminal defendants, and if this were enough to disqualify a judge, all criminal defendants would have to do to obtain a substitution of judge is sue the judge).