People v. Devenny
| Decision Date | 18 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 91291.,91291. |
| Citation | 199 Ill.2d 398,769 N.E.2d 942,264 Ill.Dec. 105 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Jeremy DEVENNY, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield, Joseph E. Birkett, State's Attorney, Wheaton (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers, Domenica A. Osterberger, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, Mark G. Levine, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellante Defender, Elgin, for appellee.
The sole issue in this case is whether the 15-year sentencing enhancement for armed robbery while in possession of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2), (b) (West 2000)) is valid and enforceable. We hold that it is not.
Defendant, Jeremy Devenny, was charged by indictment with robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1 (West 2000)) and armed robbery while in possession of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2000)). Although armed robbery is classified generally as a Class X felony, subsection (b) of the armed robbery statute provides that, for armed robberies while in possession of a firearm," "15 years shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court." 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2000). Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion arguing that the 15-year sentencing enhancement both violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 11) and constitutes an unlawful double enhancement. The circuit court of Du Page County agreed with both of defendant's arguments, invalidated the 15 year enhancement, and dismissed the armed robbery count. The State immediately appealed under Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (145 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(1)). Because the trial court's ruling invalidates a statute of this state, the appeal was taken directly to this court. 134 Ill.2d R. 603.
A statute is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the statute bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. In re K.C., 186 Ill.2d 542, 550, 239 Ill.Dec. 572, 714 N.E.2d 491 (1999). This court has a duty to construe a statute in a manner that upholds its validity and constitutionality if it reasonably can be done. People v. Malchow, 193 Ill.2d 413, 418, 250 Ill.Dec. 670, 739 N.E.2d 433 (2000). Whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law that we review denovo. Malchow, 193 Ill.2d at 418, 250 Ill.Dec. 670, 739 N.E.2d 433.
This appeal is controlled by our decision People v. Walden, 199 Ill.2d 392, 264 Ill.Dec. 91, 769 N.E.2d 928 (2002). In Walden, this court concluded that the 15 year sentencing enhancement for armed robbery while in possession of a firearm violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution and therefore is unenforceable. Walden, 199 Ill.2d at 397, 264 Ill.Dec. at 95, 769 N.E.2d at 932. Given the identity of issue between this appeal and Walden, we hold that the trial court's order invalidating the 15-year enhancement in this case was proper.
The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed, and the cause is remanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hauschild, 2-03-0857.
...264 Ill.Dec. 314, 770 N.E.2d 208 (2002), overruled by Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d at 516-23, 298 Ill.Dec. 169, 839 N.E.2d 492; People v. Devenny, 199 Ill.2d 398, 264 Ill.Dec. 105, 769 N.E.2d 942 (2002), overruled by Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d at 516-23, 298 Ill.Dec. 169, 839 N.E.2d 492. Although defendant i......
-
Interstate Bankers Cas. Co. v. Hernandez
...is reviewed de novo. Also, whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law, which we also review de novo. People v. Devenny, 199 Ill.2d 398, 400, 264 Ill.Dec. 105, 769 N.E.2d 942 (2002). Illinois courts have not had an opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of this particular......
-
People v. Collier
......People v. Boeckmann , 238 Ill. 2d 1, 6, 342 Ill.Dec. 537, 932 N.E.2d 998 (2010). We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo . People v. Devenny , 199 Ill. 2d 398, 400, 264 Ill.Dec. 105, 769 N.E.2d 942 (2002).¶ 31 Defendant argues that the Humane Care for Animals Act encompasses even well-intended or accidental harms to animals. Defendant posits that the statute punishes "any conduct that results in cruel treatment or abuse of an animal, ......
-
People v. Conroy
...2d at 306-07, 322 Ill.Dec. 548, 891 N.E.2d 839. The constitutionality of a statute is subject to de novo review. People v. Devenny , 199 Ill. 2d 398, 400, 264 Ill.Dec. 105, 769 N.E.2d 942 (2002). ¶ 10 The first step in evaluating a claim that a statute violates a constitutional guarantee is......