People v. Carter

In prosecution on charge of armed habitual criminal arising out of pat-down search of defendant after officer had received information from two anonymous tips that had complained about individual who had waived gun at two women, trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of gun and his subsequent arrest. Officer’s search of defendant did not violate 4^th Amendment, where record showed that: (1) defendant matched physical description of culprit provided by tipster; (2) officer observed defendant within minutes of second tip and near location where tipster said culprit would be found; and (3) officer, with 22 years of experience, testified that defendant was walking in manner that looked like he was concealing gun in his waistband. As such, officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was armed so as to justify instant stop and pat-down search. Also, record was unclear as to whether defendant’s prior aggravated battery conviction qualified as “forcible felony” so as to support his conviction as armed habitual criminal. While defendant argued that record failed to indicate that his prior aggravated battery conviction resulted in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, defendant failed to supplement record on appeal with copy aggravated battery indictment or mittimus to clarify basis of his prior conviction. Accordingly, Appellate Court affirmed instant armed habitual criminal conviction, but noted that defendant could attack his conviction via petition for post-conviction relief that would allow defendant to supplement record.