Judge denies new trial for Yohn; hearing to reconsider or reduce sentence set for March 28

QUINCY — Circuit Judge Roger Thomson denied a new trial for Bradley Yohn in an order filed last week in Adams County Circuit Court, and a hearing to reconsider or reduce Yohn’s sentence is set for later this month.

Thomson ruled Jan. 3 that he was allowing defense attorney Mark Wykoff to file an amended motion for a new trial for Yohn, 38, who is serving a 130-year sentence at the Lawrence Correctional Center in Sumner. A 10-man, two-woman jury determined on July 17, 2023, that Yohn was guilty of the crimes he committed on Nov. 9, 2021, at the home of Christine “Tina” Lohman Schmitt. She died 33 days after the attack on Dec. 12, 2021.

Wykoff claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion filed Aug. 9 for a new trial. The motion contained 82 paragraphs describing what he believed were errors by the court that merited giving Yohn a new trial. Yohn defended himself pro se during his trial, but Chief Public Defender Todd Nelson represented him during his sentencing. Thomson allowed Nelson to serve as “standby counsel” during the trial.

“(Nelson) was physically present for a substantial period of the pretrial proceedings … and the entirety of (Yohn’s) jury trial,” Wykoff wrote in his Aug. 9 motion. “While (Yohn) was a pro se litigant during these phases, it should have been abundantly clear to counsel that (Yohn) was passionate about raising perceived error, making objections thereto, often seeking reconsideration of adverse rulings, making it clear that he would be seeking review of the denial of trial-court relief on appeal. 

“In that post-trial, (Nelson) then failed to reduce those preserved errors to a post-trial motion, now subjecting those preserved errors to the near-impossible-to-overcome standard of review of plain error (and) deprived (Yohn) of the effective assistance of counsel during the post-trial phase of the proceedings. After all, the right to counsel entails more than mere representation by an attorney. It includes the right to effective assistance of counsel.”

Yohn then filed on Sept. 4 a pro se addition with additional information to 28 of the alleged errors in Wykoff’s motion. Among his claims were that his DNA was planted on alleged evidence, motions to suppress testimony should have been granted, a motion for a substitution of judge should have been granted and that prosecutors introduced his own jewelry as evidence again him and coerced Tim Schmitt, the husband of Tina Lohman Schmitt, to say it belonged to his wife.

Wykoff made a motion on Nov. 21 to add Yohn’s motion to his motion.

“The court did not err in denying the motions specified in paragraphs 1 to 66 of the defendant’s amended motion for new trial for the reasons previously argued by the state and/or stated by the court in the written orders and oral rulings,” Thomson wrote in a March 6 order.

“The court finds no abuse of discretion by the court, no accident or surprise to the parties at trial that they had no reason to expect, and no newly discovered evidence which would change the outcome of the trial. The evidence presented at trial was overwhelmingly sufficient to support the jury finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable double on each criminal offense charged and tried. The jury’s verdict and the court’s decision do not violate the law.”

A hearing before Thomson to reconsider or reduce Yohn’s sentence is set for March 28.

Thomson called Yohn “the most reprehensible person ever before me” during his career in law before sentencing him on Sept. 23, 2023, to the Illinois Department of Corrections. Thomson gave Yohn 30-year sentences for home invasion, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated vehicular hijacking. He gave Yohn 40 years for aggravated criminal sexual assault. Each sentence is to be served consecutively.

A motion by Wykoff filed on Feb. 7 said Thomson “failed to adequately consider and place the proper weight upon the mitigating factors presented in contrast to the excessive weight placed upon applicable factors in aggravation, in addition to improperly considering and weighing inapplicable factors in aggravation.”

Wykoff wrote that Thomson’s sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution, which says, “All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.” 

“(Yohn) received a de facto life sentence to the penitentiary with little to no prospect of being restored to useful citizenship,” Wykoff wrote. 

“Here, (Thomson), in stating that (Yohn) was ‘the most reprehensible person’ that (he) had encountered in all of his years as a criminal practitioner and judge, relied upon (his) own opinion of the crime in error. … Moreover, a trial court must conduct itself in a fair and impartial manner, and the court may not show bias or prejudice against either party.  Judicial restraint in the court’s conduct and remarks is not limited to the presence of the jury but is required throughout all the court’s dealings with the litigants who come before it.” 

Wykoff referred to the Illinois Compiled Statutes (730 ILCS 5/5-8-4), noting that when a court imposes multiple sentences of imprisonment on a defendant at the same time, then the sentences should run concurrently unless otherwise determined by the Illinois court. “(C)onsecutive sentences are rarely appropriate and must be imposed sparingly,” Wykoff wrote.

Assistant State’s Attorney Laura Keck wrote in a March 5 response to Wykoff’s motion that Thomson properly ordered Yohn to serve each count consecutively. She also quoted 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4, which requires a judge to impose consecutive sentencing when the defendant is convicted of a Class X or Class 1 felony and the defendant inflicted severe bodily harm.

“The People agree that (Thomson) did not specifically enter its basis for its finding of great bodily harm … as to mandate (Yohn) serve 85 percent of his sentence on these counts,” Keck wrote. “However, the People believe this can be easily remedied at the March 28 hearing by (Thomson) entering its basis for this finding on the record at that time.

“The court saw the pictures of the victim’s injuries (including the chemical burns to her mouth, her bruising on her knees and hands, and the tears to her vagina) at the trial in this matter. This evidence was more than sufficient for (Thomson) to make a finding of great bodily harm.”