People v. Beck
Decision Date | 14 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 5-01-0722.,5-01-0722. |
Citation | 790 N.E.2d 429,339 Ill. App.3d 413,274 Ill.Dec. 53 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff, v. Jamel BECK, Defendant (Jamel Beck, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Kenneth Briley, Respondent-Appellee). |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel M. Kirwan, Deputy Defender, Rita K. Peterson, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for Appellant.
James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers, Colleen M. Griffin, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, for Appellee.
In 1986 a petition alleging that Jamel Beck was a delinquent minor (14 years of age) was filed in the circuit court of St. Clair County. The petition alleged that Beck had committed six counts of attempted murder, six counts of aggravated battery, and one count of home invasion. The prosecution of the case was later transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court pursuant to former section 2-7(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 702-7(3)(a)). Beck later pled guilty and was sentenced to six consecutive 20-year terms of imprisonment. In 2000, Beck filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that the consecutive sentences imposed by the court violated the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The circuit court found that Beck's sentencing was entitled to reconsideration under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2000)), in light of the holding in Apprendi. Beck's petition, however, was ultimately denied. Beck then filed a motion to reconsider, alleging that section 2-7 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 37, par. 702-7) was unconstitutional under Apprendi. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that Apprendi did not apply to the juvenile transfer proceedings. Beck brought this appeal. The sole issue for review is whether section 2-7, as it existed at the time Beck was transferred to adult criminal court, is unconstitutional. We affirm.
On November 25, 1986, a petition was filed pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act ( ). The petition alleged that Beck had committed six counts of attempted murder and one count of aggravated battery. The petition alleged that Beck was delinquent, and it sought to have him declared a ward of the court. The same day, the State also filed a motion pursuant to former section 2-7(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 37, par. 702-7(3)(a)), seeking to have Beck, 14 years of age, prosecuted under Illinois criminal law. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the State's motion to transfer Beck from juvenile court to adult criminal court. A grand jury later returned an indictment charging Beck with six counts of armed violence, six counts of attempted murder, six counts of aggravated battery, and one count of home invasion. Beck entered into a negotiated plea agreement in which he pled guilty to the six armed violence counts and the six aggravated battery counts. The court entered a judgment of conviction on Beck's plea of guilty and sentenced him to six consecutive 20-year terms of imprisonment.
Beck filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the court denied. Beck appealed. In People v. Beck, 190 Ill.App.3d 748, 138 Ill.Dec. 72, 546 N.E.2d 1127 (1989), we vacated Beck's convictions for aggravated battery and affirmed his transfer under the Juvenile Court Act, as well as the court's imposition of consecutive sentences. In October 2000, Beck filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that the court's imposition of consecutive sentences was unconstitutional under Apprendi. The circuit court found that the petition did not entitle him to a discharge, but the court found that he might be entitled to a reconsideration of his sentencing under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2000)), in light of the holding in Apprendi. However, the court later denied the petition, finding (1) that Apprendi did not apply to the consecutive sentencing, (2) that Beck had waived any perceived Apprendi violations when he entered the negotiated guilty plea, and (3) that an Apprendi claim could not be brought under the Habeas Corpus Act (735 ILCS 5/10-101 et seq. (West 2000)). Beck filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that section 2-7(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act was unconstitutional under Apprendi. The court found that Apprendi did not apply to juvenile transfer proceedings, and the court denied the motion. Beck filed this timely appeal.
On appeal, Beck argues that section 2-7(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act ( ) is unconstitutional because it can result in increased punishment due to facts not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Apprendi.
At the time Beck was transferred, section 2-7 provided in pertinent part as follows:
Beck notes that if he had been adjudicated in juvenile court, he would have faced a maximum punishment of commitment to the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections until his twenty-first birthday. Beck notes further that as the language of section 2-7(3)(a) demonstrates above, the judge considering the State's motion to transfer is required to engage in findings of fact. Beck contends that the trial court judge's determination that it was not in his or the public's "best interest" to proceed with his case under the Juvenile Court Act subjected him to increased punishment. Beck contends that the required findings of fact made by a judge, instead of a jury, and the resulting increased punishment that could result from such findings render section 2-7(3)(a) unconstitutional under Apprendi. Beck contends that, despite the fact that section 2-7 is not a sentencing law and does not, itself, impose a particular sentence, it nevertheless operates to change the entire sentencing scheme under which certain minors are sentenced and therefore subjects them to increased punishment.
In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a New Jersey "hate crime" statute that permitted the trial court to impose a prison sentence of up to 20 years where it found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant's purpose in acting was to intimidate a victim due to the victim's race. The Apprendi Court held that because the findings the trial court was permitted to make involved an element of the crime, the defendant was denied his due process right to a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury on each element of the crime charged. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 477, 120 S.Ct. at 2356, 147 L.Ed.2d at 447. It is on this basis that the Apprendi Court held as follows: "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury[] and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63, 147 L.Ed.2d at 455. However, section 2-7, at issue here, does not involve the same concerns.
Beck's argument is not the first to make an Apprendi-based challenge to the provisions of the statute governing juvenile court proceedings that allow a minor to be exposed to the criminal law. In People v. Beltran, 327 Ill.App.3d 685, 262 Ill.Dec. 463, 765 N.E.2d 1071 (2002), a 15-year-old defendant similarly argued that section 5-805 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/5-805 (West 1998)) was unconstitutional in light of the holding in Apprendi. In that case, under section 5-805(2)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/5-805(2)(a) (West 1998)), the State obtained a presumptive transfer of the defendant from juvenile court to adult criminal court to pursue sanctions available under the criminal law. Under section 5-805(2)(a) the State was required to allege that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- People v. Rosemond
-
People v. Beck
...Ill.Dec. 178, 674 N.E.2d 1283 (1993) (table) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 ); People v. Beck , 339 Ill. App. 3d 413, 274 Ill.Dec. 53, 790 N.E.2d 429 (2003) ; and People v. Beck , 348 Ill. App. 3d 1111, 311 Ill.Dec. 448, 868 N.E.2d 1109 (2004) (table) (unpublished o......
-
In re JW
...Apprendi. See People v. Beltran, 327 Ill.App.3d 685, 690-91, 262 Ill.Dec. 463, 765 N.E.2d 1071 (2002); People v. Beck, 339 Ill.App.3d 413, 418, 274 Ill.Dec. 53, 790 N.E.2d 429 (2003). We find no reason to depart from this Moreover, unlike the statute in Apprendi, the EJJ determination does ......
- People v. Beck