En Banc Minute Sheet – 2019

STATE OF ILLINOIS

JB PRITZKER, GOVERNOR

PRISONER REVIEW BOARD

EN BANC MINUTE SHEET- OPEN SESSION

MEETING OF APRIL 25, 2019

EN BANC MINUTE SHEET OPEN SESSION— April 25, 2019

Inmate Name: DONALD GRANT IDOC Number: L02079

The Illinois Prisoner Review Board met in open en banc session at 319 East Madison Street, Suite A, Springfield, Illinois, on April 25, 2019, at the 8:00 a.m. session to discuss and deliberate parole eligibility for Donald Grant L02079.

Members present were Mr. Brink, Ms. Crigler, Ms. Daniels, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Fisher, Ms. Harris, Mr. James, Ms. Martinez, Mrs. Perkins, Mr. Ruggiero, Mr. Shelton, Mr. Tupy, Ms. Wilson, and Chairman Findley.

Recording Secretary: Janet Crane.

PRESENTATION OF INTERVIEW AND FILE

Ms. Martinez presented the following summary of the parole consideration interview and review of Mr. Grant’s file:

A parole consideration interview was conducted at Dixon Correctional Center with Donald Grant L02079 on March 12, 2019. Present at the interview were Ms. Martinez, Mr. Grant and Carolyn Klarquist, attorney for Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant is currently serving 60-180 years for Murder and 20-60 years for Armed Robbery. His date of birth is June 12, 1954, and he is currently 64 years of age.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 24, 1976, security guard Robert Jackson was shot and killed during the Robbery of a grocery store where he was employed. Earlier, the victim, Mr. Jackson, had accused Mr. Grant of shoplifting, which led to a verbal altercation. Mr. Grant was removed from the store as a result of the altercation. Mr. Grant returned to the store the next day, being driven by co- defendant Martin Ray Williams. Upon entering the store, Mr. Grant put a .22 caliber handgun to Mr. Jackson’s head and fired one round. Mr. Grant then fled the scene, taking the victim’s revolver with him. The victim was a retired Peoria County Sheriff and was in his security guard uniform at the time of the Murder.

Mr. Grant remained free until his arrest and conviction in 1981. The first trial led to a mistrial, when the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. On the retrial in 1982, he was convicted and sentenced to 60-180 years for Murder and 20 to 60 years for Armed Robbery. His codefendant was tried separately and convicted under the accountability theory. Mr. Grant’s co- defendant was released in 1995.

MR. GRANT’S STATEMENTS AS TO THE OFFENSE

Mr. Grant takes full responsibility for the crime. He states that he was in the store and there was some meat on the side. The security guard came by and asked, “Why are you trying to steal meat?” There was a confrontation, and the security guard put his hand on his gun. Mr. Grant stated that he felt disrespected. The next day, he was talking to his co-defendant, who was drinking, about what had happened. Mr. Grant said that he wanted to go back to the store and clarify to the security guard that he was not stealing. Mr. Grant said that he went into the store with a gun that he had gotten from someone else and started talking about what had happened. He advised that he had intended to disarm the security guard, so that Mr. Grant could talk to the guard. Mr. Grant further stated that when he placed the handgun to the guard’s head, that’s when it went off. Mr. Grant explained that it was accidental, but said “I did this and am ashamed about what I did.” He noted that everything changed after the shooting, and he stopped his criminal behavior. He apologized to the Jackson family and seeks their forgiveness.

CRIMINAL HISTORY

Prior to his conviction in this case, Mr. Grant was convicted of Burglary and Armed Robbery in 1976 in Illinois. He was also convicted of Armed Robbery in federal court, which also occurred in 1976. Mr. Grant served 4 years in Wisconsin and was paroled in 1980.

There was an additional Obstructing a Peace Officer charge, which Mr. Grant says occurred because a friend was being arrested and beaten by police. Mr. Grant stated that he only told police they didn’t have to hit his friend.

INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

At the time of the crime, Mr. Grant was 21 years of age. He had dropped out of high school, but had joined the Marines. He married before leaving for the Marines, and his wife gave birth to a daughter. He was stationed in Okinawa and then on the USS Cleveland. While he was overseas, his wife gave birth to their son, who was born with hydrocephalous (water on the brain). Mr. Grant was given an honorable discharge in 1974 to help care for his son. However, Mr. Grant had suffered a knee injury during basic training that continues to affect him today. He indicated that he lost his job due to this injury, and that he started committing burglaries and robberies after that occurred. He stated that he was unemployed and under the stress of trying to provide for his family. He says he was making bad decisions due to his immaturity. He was divorced in 1984.

Mr. Grant has an excellent institutional adjustment. He is in A Grade, Level 3 minimum security, at Dixon Correctional Center. He has earned an Associate of Arts Degree and an Associate of Applied Science Degree. He has also earned certificates in Business Management, Construction Occupations, and Photographic/Graphic Arts. He has served as a Violence

Prevention Peer Facilitator from 2008 to 2016 and has completed Lifestyle Redirection and Anger Management.

Mr. Grant has received only four major and eight minor tickets since 2002, none of which involved violence. One of the major tickets was in 2017, for taking two pieces of chicken and 18 slices of bread.

Mr. Grant currently is assigned as an Administration Specialist in the Print Shop. His counselor noted that Mr. Grant is always be willing to assist staff, regardless of the duty, stating that “[Mr. Grant] has always remained active with work assignments and bettering himself by getting an education, completing programs, volunteering, and learning skills to become a productive citizen. He is respected by both staff and inmates and displays himself as a model inmate.” On the SPIN assessment, Mr. Grant scored very low on the overall risk assessment.

With regards to his current health, as mentioned above, Mr. Grant injured his knee during basic training and continues to have problems with that knee. He is hoping to have knee replacement through the Veteran’s Administration (VA) when he is released. Otherwise, he is in good health, except for cataracts.

PAROLE PLAN

Mr. Grant has been approved to reside at St. Leonard’s House. He plans to get his knee surgery through the VA and will pursue work in the construction industry upon his release. He plans to stay at St. Leonard’s for 12 months and then move to St. Andrew Court Apartments, which is affiliated with St. Leonard’s. While at St. Leonard’s, he would participate in classes that include life skills, addiction treatment and counseling, employment readiness, anger management and financial planning.

He has already prepared a resume in anticipation of becoming a productive citizen and would also access services of Veteran’s Employment at the Illinois Department of Employment Security. Additionally, he would receive support from his sister and other family members, with whom he has kept in contact over the years. Communication has been made through calls and letters, as he did not want to expose them to the prison environment, because he was the one who put himself in prison. As previously noted, Mr. Grant is divorced and has 5 children.

OPPOSITION TO PAROLE RELEASE

There continues to be, as there has been in the past, strong opposition to releasing Mr. Grant on parole. Letters from family members of the victim have been received every time this case comes up for consideration.

EN BANC HISTORY

At the time of Mr. Grant’s hearing in 2018, there were six votes in favor of granting parole release. Previously, Mr. Grant received two votes in 2017, one vote in 2016, three votes in 2014, and four votes in 2009.

DISCUSSION

Summary of discussion for parole consideration:
Motion to go into Closed Session to discuss victim statements (VM—PF). Leave. Motion to return to Open Session (VM—CF). Leave.

Ms. Crigler commented that Mr. Grant is a pleasant person and further noted that all he wants is to be a good father. She advised that he has done everything in his power that he can to change his life.

Mr. Brink noted that Mr. Grant has a strong institutional adjustment, which includes mentoring other inmates.

Mr. Fisher advised the Board that he cannot support shooting a police officer, and the fact that Mr. Grant put the gun up against a security guard’s head additionally concerned Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Shelton stated that he felt as though Mr. Grant’s account of the incident was a ridiculous story, as Mr. Grant stated that he had armed himself simply to return to the store and have a conversation with the victim.

Mr. Fisher requested to know if Mr. Grant was ever charged with shoplifting. Ms. Martinez stated that there were no shoplifting charges noted in his file.

Mr. James commented that he could not support parole for an individual who would shoot a police officer.

Chairman Findley spoke to the advantages to having people of different perspective on the Board.

The Peoria County State’s Attorney’s Office filed a letter in opposition to any grant of parole release to Mr. Grant.

Ms. Martinez stated that she found Mr. Grant to be remorseful and truly sorry for what he had done. She commented that he is ashamed of what he did and has done everything he can to

change his life. Ms. Martinez noted that he has served over 37 years in prison and has done everything he can to prepare himself for a law-abiding life. She also advised that he has a very solid parole plan and is very low risk for reoffending.

DECISION AND RATIONALE

Motion to grant parole (VM—AMP). Motion prevails by a vote of 11–3. Members voting in favor of the motion were Mr. Brink, Ms. Crigler, Ms. Daniels, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Harris, Mr. James, Ms. Martinez, Ms. Perkins, Mr. Shelton, Ms. Wilson and Chairman Findley. Mr. Fisher, Mr. Ruggiero, and Mr. Tupy dissented.

After a complete review of Mr. Grant’s case, and after giving thoughtful discussion and consideration to all factors, the Board decided and voted to grant parole to Mr. Grant, subject to conditions of parole release as set by the Board and by law. The Board hereby finds that Mr. Grant is an appropriate candidate for parole at this time.

“The Board makes a specific finding that the release of victim protest letters could subject a person to actual risk of physical harm.”