People v. Bilyeu

• Decision Date: 09 December 1981
• Docket Number: No. 81-278,81-278
• Citation: 102 Ill.App.3d 130,429 N.E.2d 912,57 Ill.Dec. 795
• Parties: , 57 Ill.Dec. 795 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven BILYEU, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 912

429 N.E.2d 912

102 Ill.App.3d 130, 57 Ill.Dec. 795

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven BILYEU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-278.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Dec. 9, 1981.

David Youck, Onarga, for defendant-appellant.

No brief filed for plaintiff-appellee.

HEIPLE, Justice:

The defendant, Steven Bilyeu, appeals from the order of the circuit court of Iroquois County dismissing his second amended petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

In 1976, the defendant was convicted of three counts of burglary and one count of felony theft (vehicle). He subsequently received three concurrent terms of 61/3 to 20 years' imprisonment for the burglary convictions and a consecutive sentence of 31/3 to 10 years' imprisonment for the felony theft conviction. He directly appealed the convictions and the sentencing order. His appointed appellate counsel, the State Appellate Defender's Office, moved to withdraw its representation pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. This court granted that motion and affirmed the convictions and sentencing order.

The defendant then filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the imposition of the consecutive sentence was in violation of section 5-8-4(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections which provides: "(t)he court shall not impose consecutive sentences for offenses which were committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-4(a).) The circuit court summarily dismissed the second amended petition. The defendant now appeals, contending that, because he committed the felony theft for the sole purpose of avoiding apprehension for the three prior burglaries, the felony theft was neither independently motivated by nor separable from those crimes, and therefore, the court erroneously imposed the consecutive sentence.

The Post-Conviction Act provides relief only for substantial constitutional violations that were not presented or could not have been presented on direct appeal. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 122-1 et seq.) (People v. Johnson (3rd Dist., 1978), 63 Ill.App.3d 745, 20 Ill.Dec. 553, 380 N.E.2d 531.) In the instant case, even if we were to assume that the alleged error was one of constitutional magnitude, the matter could have been presented on the direct appeal.

Apart from the foregoing procedural defect, however, the petition fails on its merits. The defendant argues that because his felony theft conviction arose as a part of his single course of conduct, and because there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective, the circuit court erred in sentencing him to a consecutive term for that conviction. A brief recital of the facts shows this contention to be devoid of merit. On the night of January 28, 1976, the defendant...