People v. Burleson – Illinois

Nature of the Case

This was an appeal from convictions on conspiracy charges.

Facts

Brown testified that he and Burleson (D) agreed to rob Middletown State Bank. The two parties cased the bank and decided to use two cars in the robbery. One car would be left on a rural road near Middletown with a change of clothing for each conspirator. Burleson agreed to obtain a shotgun and Brown agreed to get the disguises and a container for the money. They agreed to rob the bank on Saturday postponed their plans until the following Tuesday when they noticed too many people near the bank.

On the day of the robbery they changed cars, got into the disguises, and approached the bank’s front door. A man bolted the door from the inside as they approached. Burleson and Brown returned to their car and drove to their getaway car. They were arrested minutes later.

Burleson was convicted of attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. On appeal, Burleson questioned the validity of the conspiracy conviction because the conspiracy arose from the same course of conduct as the attempted robbery.

Issues

Is the magnitude of the act committed by the defendant in order to support a conviction of a crime of conspiracy less than it is for an attempt?
Can a person charged with multiple conspiracies be convicted of them if he entered into multiple partially overlapping agreements to commit crimes so long as overt acts are committed in furtherance of those agreements?
Is conspiracy a lessor included offense and therefore merges into completed offenses?

Holding and Rule of Law

Yes. The magnitude of the act committed by the defendant in order to support a conviction of a crime of conspiracy is less than it is for an attempt.
Yes. A person charged with multiple conspiracies can be convicted of them if he entered into multiple partially overlapping agreements to commit crimes so long as overt acts are committed in furtherance of those agreements.
Yes. Conspiracy is a lessor included offense and therefore merges into completed offenses.

Conspiracy requires an act in furtherance of the agreement. Attempt requires an act that is a substantial step toward committing the offense. Burleson and Brown did not enter the bank building but they were in possession of a shotgun, suitcase, and disguises which were in place when they approached the bank. Those acts were sufficient to constitute a substantial step toward the commission of an armed robbery of the bank. Burleson and Brown were also charged with two conspiracies alleging that they agreed to rob the bank on two separate occasions, and they committed overt acts of casing the bank, procuring weapons, and disguises and plotting their get away strategy.

This first conspiracy was abandoned when it was discovered that there were too many people near the bank. They agreed again to rob the bank on the next Tuesday. On this occasion they committed a substantial step towards robbing the bank of which the second conspiracy was the lessor included offense. A person charged with multiple conspiracies can be convicted of them if he entered into multiple partially overlapping agreements to commit crimes so long as overt acts are committed in furtherance of those agreements. Under these facts Burleson entered into separate agreements to rob the bank on separate dates.

Disposition

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The conspiracy conviction for the second attempted robbery must be reversed as it was a lessor included offense of attempt.