People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 70253,70538 and 70565,70486,70302,s. 70253 |
| Citation | 174 Ill.Dec. 829,149 Ill.2d 467,599 N.E.2d 913 |
| Parties | , 174 Ill.Dec. 829 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Roger WILLIAMS, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Andre PETERS, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Louis HAMILTON, Appellee. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Michael WILLIAMS, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Christopher RICE, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, and Linda Eigner, Gordon H. Berry, Nan Ellen Foley, Barbara Czuchra Kamm, Ann C. McCallister and Debra R. Salinger, Assistant Appellate Defenders, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, and Timothy McKercher, law student, for appellants in Nos. 70253, 70302, 70538 & 70565.
Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Jack O'Malley, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Terence M. Madsen, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb, Theodore Fotios Burtzos and William D. Carroll, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People in Nos. 70253, 70302, 70538 & 70565.
Neil F. Hartigan and Roland W. Burris, Attorneys General, of Springfield, and Paul A. Logli, State's Attorney, of Rockford (Terence M. Madsen, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, Renee Goldfarb, Theodore Fotios Burtzos and William D. Carroll, Assistant State's Attorneys, and Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman and James Majors, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People in No. 70486.
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, and Gloria A. Morris, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Springfield, for appellee in No. 70486.
In cause No. 70253, defendant, Roger Williams, was convicted of robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 18-1(a)) following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County. At his sentencing hearing the court found Williams qualified for a Class X sentence (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a)(3)) under section 5-5-3(c)(8) (the Class X provision) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-5-3(c)(8)) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 1001-1-1 et seq.). Williams did not disagree with the court's finding and he was then sentenced to nine years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Williams appealed, contending, inter alia, that the court improperly sentenced him as a Class X offender. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, finding that he did not object to the proof of his two prior felonies and that the commission dates of these two felonies could be inferred from the record. (194 Ill.App.3d 1111, 162 Ill.Dec. 579, 580 N.E.2d 205 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).) This court granted Williams' petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
In cause No. 70302, defendant, Andre Peters, was convicted of robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 18-1(a)) following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County. At his sentencing hearing the court found Peters qualified for a Class X sentence. Peters did not object to the court's Class X finding and he was then sentenced to 25 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Peters appealed, contending, inter alia, that the court improperly sentenced him as a Class X offender. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, finding that the record contained ample evidence of Peters' status as a Class X offender. (198 Ill.App.3d 1106, 165 Ill.Dec. 645, 584 N.E.2d 1079 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).) This court granted Peters' petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
In cause No. 70486, defendant, Louis Hamilton, was convicted of residential burglary (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 19-(3)(a)) and robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 18-1(a)) following a jury trial in the circuit court of Winnebago County. At his sentencing hearing the court found Hamilton eligible for a Class X sentence. Hamilton conceded his eligibility for a Class X sentence and he was then sentenced to 20 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Hamilton appealed, contending, inter alia, that he should not have been sentenced as a Class X offender. The appellate court reversed his sentence, finding that there was insufficient proof of Hamilton's prior felonies in the record. (198 Ill.App.3d 108, 144 Ill.Dec. 426, 555 N.E.2d 785.) This court granted the State's petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
In cause No. 70538, defendant, Michael Williams, was convicted of burglary (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 19-1(a)) following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County. At his sentencing hearing the court found Williams qualified for a Class X sentence. Williams did not object to the court's Class X finding and he was then sentenced to 12 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Williams appealed, contending, inter alia, that the court improperly sentenced him as a Class X offender. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, finding that the commission dates of his two prior felonies could reasonably be inferred from the record. (201 Ill.App.3d 434, 147 Ill.Dec. 96, 559 N.E.2d 96.) This court granted Williams' petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
In cause No. 70565, defendant, Christopher Rice, was convicted of burglary (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 19-1(a)) following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County. At his sentencing hearing the court found Rice eligible for a Class X sentence. He was then sentenced to six years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Rice appealed, contending, inter alia, that the court erred in sentencing him as a Class X offender. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, finding that the record adequately established the commission dates of his prior felonies. (199 Ill.App.3d 1102, 165 Ill.Dec. 918, 585 N.E.2d 649 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).) This court granted Rice's petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
The above causes were consolidated for review and each presents the following common issues: (1) whether the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant's eligibility for a sentence under the Class X provision of the Unified Code; and (2) whether State and Federal double jeopardy principles prohibit a second hearing on Class X eligibility where the record of the first sentencing hearing did not sufficiently establish such eligibility.
To be sentenced under the Class X provision, a defendant must have previously been twice convicted of a Class 2 or greater class felony, and the commission and conviction dates of the prior felonies must have occurred in the chronological order mandated by the statute. The Class X provision reads as follows:
This paragraph shall not apply unless (1) the first felony was committed after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1977 ; (Emphasis added.) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-5-3(c)(8).)
The records in the consolidated causes share a common omission in that the documents listing the two prior felonies of each defendant did not provide the dates on which those felonies had been committed.
In cause No. 70253, Williams' criminal history sheet ) set forth only the arrest and conviction dates of his two prior felonies. The sheet has six topic headings which read, from left to right, as follows: (A criminal history sheet similar in form to those referred to here was reproduced in People v. Cabrera (1987), 116 Ill.2d 474, 505, 108 Ill.Dec. 397, 508 N.E.2d 708.) On the right-hand side of the sheet, appearing beneath the last four topic headings, the criminal history sheet reads, in relevant part, as follows:
In cause No. 70302, Peters' prior felony convictions were evidenced by a criminal history sheet, a presentence investigation report (presentence report), and a certified statement of conviction. Neither the presentence report, the criminal history sheet, nor the statement of conviction gave the dates on which the two prior felonies were committed. The presentence report reads, in relevant part, as follows:
"Prior Conviction
* * *
Date"Place Case # Charge(s): Disposition
* * *
6/7/79 79 I 2755 Burglary 3 Yrs Prob
Term. 3/1986
* * *
2"29"80 79"5169 Burg 3 Yrs
on Parole."
In cause No. 70486, Hamilton's two prior felonies were shown in both a presentence report and in a "Statement by the State's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Yancy
... ... Nonetheless, as discussed above, even after Apprendi and Shepard, the State was not constitutionally required to prove that defendant was eligible for Class X sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt. See also People v. Williams, 149 Ill.2d 467, 174 Ill.Dec. 829, 599 N.E.2d 913 (1992) (holding that the Code does not require the State to prove defendant's eligibility for Class X sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt). Moreover, because defendant did not object to the imposition of a Class X sentence during sentencing or in ... ...
-
People v. Reese
...v. Brooks, 202 Ill.App.3d 164, 170, 147 Ill.Dec. 519, 559 N.E.2d 859 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by People v. Williams, 149 Ill.2d 467, 174 Ill.Dec. 829, 599 N.E.2d 913 (1992).¶ 89 In Brooks, (id. at 167–68, 147 Ill.Dec. 519, 559 N.E.2d 859 ), the defendant challenged his robbery con......
-
People v. Jones
...and reliable source for judicial determination of that fact. The court put particular emphasis on People v. Williams, 149 Ill.2d 467, 174 Ill.Dec. 829, 599 N.E.2d 913 (1992), in which our supreme court “acknowledged that a variety of documents containing a defendant's criminal history have ......
-
People v. Blanck, 2-92-0432
...report is generally a reliable source for the purpose of inquiring into a defendant's criminal history. (People v. Williams (1992), 149 Ill.2d 467, 491, 174 Ill.Dec. 829, 599 N.E.2d 913.) We also note that materials such as police "rap sheets" of convictions (People v. Dennis (1970), 47 Ill......