People v. Hall

• Decision Date: 03 September 2004
• Docket Number: No. 1-03-1276.,1-03-1276.
• Citation: 816 N.E.2d 703,287 Ill.Dec. 736,352 Ill. App.3d 537
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

816 N.E.2d 703

352 Ill. App.3d 537

287 Ill.Dec. 736

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-03-1276.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

September 3, 2004.

Rehearing Denied October 21, 2004.

Office of the State Appellate Defender, Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Jennifer L. Blagg, Assistant Appellate Defender, Chicago, for Appellant.

Office of the Illinois State's Attorney, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Renee Goldfarb, Margaret J. Campos, Sally L. Dilgart, and Elizabeth Novy, Assistant State's Attorneys, Chicago, for Appellee.

Presiding Justice FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial, defendant Charles Hall (defendant) was convicted of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to submit DNA samples for genetic marker purposes pursuant to section 5-4-3(a-5) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4-3(a-5) (West 2002)). He appeals, contending that the aggravated robbery statute (720 ILCS 5/18-5(a) (West 2000)) violates due process and that the compulsory extraction of DNA violates fourth amendment guarantees to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. He asks that we (1) vacate his conviction and instead enter a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of robbery, and (2) that we find section 5-4-3(a-5) to be unconstitutional as applied to him, order the expungement of his DNA record from all databases, and order the destruction of any samples, analyses, or other documents relating to such record. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The following facts, in brief, were adduced at trial.

Chad Ward testified that on July 13, 2001, he was working alone as an assistant manager of the Blockbuster Video store located in North Riverside. At about 11 a.m., there were two customers in his store, including defendant. Ward assisted a customer, who then left. He continued to work behind the check-out counter when defendant approached him and asked if he could ask Ward a question. Ward responded, "sure." Ward testified that defendant asked him if he had ever been shot. When Ward replied, "What?" defendant repeated the question. Ward then answered "no," and defendant asked him if he was wearing a bulletproof vest. Ward again answered "no." Ward averred that at this time, defendant asked him if he wanted to get shot and "grabbed at his [defendant's] waist," making this motion two or three times during the conversation. Ward, who assumed defendant had a gun or other weapon in his waistband, answered "no," whereupon defendant replied: "So, you're going to cooperate with me?" When Ward said "yes," defendant pulled two plastic bags from his pocket and told Ward that he did not want any money, just videotapes. Ward testified that defendant filled the plastic bags with some 50 digital video discs (DVDs) and a few videotapes, valued at over $700. Defendant warned Ward not to call the police and that he was watching him. As defendant left the store, he watched Ward through the store windows. Ward further testified that he called the police after defendant left his sight. Upon doing inventory, Ward discovered that among the items missing were two videotapes.

Additional testimony and evidence presented at trial showed that shortly after noon on the same day, defendant was pulled over by police pursuant to a traffic stop. Two videotapes were recovered from his car and identified as those two videotapes missing from the store, bearing the same titles. A surveillance tape of the store taken at the time of the incident was also introduced at trial and viewed by the court.

At the close of trial, the court in its colloquy noted that it had reviewed all the evidence, believed Ward to be a "credible and reliable witness," and found the evidence sufficient to prove defendant guilty of aggravated robbery. Specifically, with respect to the aggravated nature of the charge, the court stated:

"As to [defendant's] questioning of have you ever been shot, are you wearing a bulletproof vest, would you want to be shot and then making an indication toward his waistband, is sufficient for the—to satisfy the charge [of aggravated robbery]."

Because defendant was a Class X offender, the court sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The court then granted the State's motion ordering defendant to submit DNA samples for genetic marker purposes pursuant to statute.

ANALYSIS

Defendant presents two issues on appeal. We address each separately.

I. Aggravated Robbery and Due Process

Defendant's first contention on appeal is that his conviction for aggravated robbery must be vacated and reduced to simple robbery because the aggravated robbery statute under which he was convicted violates due process. He asserts that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him because it rests solely on the subjective impression of the victim; that is, he insists that one may be convicted of aggravated robbery even if the victim unreasonably believed that person to have been armed, as occurred here. Defendant claims that the statute fails to provide people with a reasonable opportunity to distinguish between lawful and unlawful conduct, and fails to provide a sufficiently definite standard to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory application of its terms. We disagree.

A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and, thus, the party challenging it bears the burden of clearly demonstrating its invalidity. See People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill.2d 264, 290, 271 Ill.Dec. 881, 786 N.E.2d 139 (2003); accord People v. Bailey, 167 Ill.2d 210, 225, 212 Ill.Dec. 608, 657 N.E.2d 953 (1995); People v. Zapata, 347 Ill.App.3d 956, 966, 283 Ill.Dec. 776,808 N.E.2d 1064 (2004). We are duty-bound to construe a statute in a manner that upholds its validity and constitutionality, if this can reasonably be done. See Cryns, 203 Ill.2d at 290-91,271 Ill.Dec. 881,786 N.E.2d 139; accord In re C.E., 161 Ill.2d 200, 227, 204 Ill.Dec. 121, 641 N.E.2d 345 (1994); People v. Cosby, 305 Ill.App.3d 211, 224, 238 Ill.Dec. 513, 711 N.E.2d 1174 (1999) (we must affirm statute's constitutionality and validity whenever possible). In examining a statute's constitutionality, we employ a de novo standard of review. See Zapata, 347 Ill.App.3d at 967,283 Ill.Dec. 776,808 N.E.2d 1064.

As a threshold matter, we note that, in addition to his contention that the aggravated robbery statute is unconstitutional as applied to him in the instant case, defendant makes a facial challenge to the statute as a whole. However, the law is clear that he does not have standing to do this, since the aggravated robbery statute does not involve first amendment rights. See Cryns, 203 Ill.2d at 291, 271 Ill.Dec. 881, 786 N.E.2d 139; Bailey, 167 Ill.2d at 231, 212 Ill.Dec. 608, 657 N.E.2d 953. Rather, in order for defendant to succeed on his vagueness challenge of this statute, he must establish that the statute is vague as applied to the conduct for which he was prosecuted, i.e., with respect to the particular facts of his specific case. See Cryns, 203 Ill.2d at 291, 271 Ill.Dec. 881, 786 N.E.2d 139; People v. Holt, 271 Ill.App.3d 1016, 1026, 208 Ill.Dec. 515, 649 N.E.2d 571 (1995). It is only within this narrow context of review that we may entertain his challenge. See Cryns, 203 Ill.2d at 291, 271 Ill.Dec. 881, 786 N.E.2d 139; accord Holt, 271 Ill.App.3d at 1026, 208 Ill. Dec. 515, 649 N.E.2d 571 ("[v]agueness claims against statutes that do not involve first amendment rights must be reviewed in the context of the specific case facts"). Even were we to allow a facial vagueness challenge to the aggravated robbery statute, defendant would be required to show that the statute is incapable of any valid application. See People v. Izzo, 195 Ill.2d 109, 112, 253 Ill.Dec. 425, 745 N.E.2d 548 (2001) (a defendant cannot challenge facial vagueness of statute not implicating first amendment freedoms unless statute is incapable of any valid application); Holt, 271 Ill.App.3d at 1026, 208 Ill.Dec. 515, 649 N.E.2d 571 (it is only when such statute is incapable of any valid application that it is unconstitutionally vague). As we will discuss in further detail, he simply is not successful in meeting this burden.

For a statute to comply with due process, it must meet two requirements. First, it must give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is lawful and what conduct is unlawful so that he may act accordingly. See Bailey, 167 Ill.2d at 228,212 Ill.Dec. 608,657 N.E.2d 953. However, a statute need not define the proscribed conduct with "mathematical precision" or give letter-perfect notice of this conduct to avoid invalidation on vagueness grounds. See Holt, 271 Ill.App.3d at 1026,208 Ill.Dec. 515,649 N.E.2d 571. Rather, as long as the statute clearly applies to the defendant's conduct in light of the facts of the case, a challenge to the statute's constitutionality based upon vagueness will not succeed. See Cryns, 203 Ill.2d at 291-92,271 Ill.Dec. 881,786 N.E.2d 139; see Holt, 271 Ill.App.3d at 1026,208 Ill.Dec. 515,649 N.E.2d 571 (where statute prohibits conduct knowingly done to accomplish that which is prohibited, accused cannot claim he suffered from lack of warning or knowledge that his conduct violated the law). The second requirement of due process is that the statute must provide explicit standards to police officers, judges and juries who apply the statute in order to prevent its arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See C.E., 161 Ill.2d at 227,204 Ill.Dec. 121,641 N.E.2d 345. However, the statute will not be declared vague if a mere hypothetical situation involving disputed meanings of some of its terms is presented. See People v. Greco, 204 Ill.2d 400, 416, 274 Ill.Dec. 73, 790 N.E.2d 846 (2003); see also C.E., 161 Ill.2d at 211,204 Ill.Dec. 121,641 N.E.2d 345, quotin...