Winsley v. Marshall

── Winsley v. Marshall ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 250431-U FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DIVISION April 14, 2026 No. 1-25-0431 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). __________________________________________________________________________ ANTUAN WINSLEY, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Petitioner-Appellee, ) of Cook County, Illinois ) vs. ) No. 2024 OP 077184 ) SHAMECKA MARSHALL, ) Hon. Marina Ammendola, ) Judge Presiding Respondent-Appellant. ) __________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McBride and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Affirmed. Respondent did not demonstrate that publication of audio recording was error or, even if error, that it was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal. ¶2 Respondent Shamecka Marshall appeals an order of protection entered against her and in favor of petitioner Antuan Winsley. Shamecka claims the trial court erred in publishing an audio recording of her speaking with Antuan by phone, as the recording was made without her consent in violation of state law. Unfortunately, the record does not establish a violation of state law, Shamecka did not object to the publication of the recording, and Shamecka has not shown that any error was sufficiently prejudicial to overturn the judgment. We affirm. ¶3 Antuan did not file a brief, so we took this case on appellant’s brief only. But Shamecka’s brief is deficient in several respects. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) (eff. July 1, 2008) No. 1-25-0431 requires a statement of facts that contains the facts “necessary to an understanding of the case.” Her brief contains a statement of facts but not one nearly sufficient to explain the case as a whole. More problematic is the lack of any citation to the record in violation of Rule 341(h)(6) and (h)(7). We have often noted that “ ‘it is not our duty to search the record for material upon which to base a reversal.’ ” Vance v. Joyner, 2019 IL App (4th) 190136, ¶ 80 (quoting Farwell Construction Co. v. Ticktin, 84 Ill. App. 3d 791, 802 (1980)). ¶4 The supreme court rules governing briefs are “not mere suggestions.” Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 7. And they apply to pro se litigants as equally as lawyers. Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78 (“A pro se litigant *** is not entitled to more lenient treatment than attorneys.”). ¶5 Finally, we are missing the exhibits from the record, including the audio recording at the center of the appeal and multiple emails between the parties that were tendered by each side. The burden is on the appellant, Shamecka, to provide a complete record on appeal. Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). Any doubt arising from the incompleteness will be resolved against the appellant and in favor of the judgment. Id. at 392. ¶6 Without any assistance from Shamecka, we briefly summarize the background. Antuan and Shamecka were romantically involved from roughly September 2022 to July 2023. In approximately September 2023, Antuan became involved with another woman, Lolita Russell, with whom he now lives. Antuan testified that from the tim