People v. Nitz

Decision Date20 April 2006
Docket NumberNo. 99712.,99712.
Citation219 Ill.2d 400,848 N.E.2d 982
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Richard C. NITZ, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Page 982

848 N.E.2d 982
219 Ill.2d 400
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant and Cross-Appellee,
v.
Richard C. NITZ, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
No. 99712.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
April 20, 2006.
Rehearing Denied May 22, 2006.

Page 983

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 984

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Charles Garnati, State's Attorney, Marion (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, Linda D. Woloshin, Anderson M. Gansner, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris and Kendra S. Peterson, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, of counsel), for the People.

Daniel Kirwan, Deputy Defender, Rita K. Peterson, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, and John J. O'Gara, Jr., Belleville, for appellee and cross-appellant.

Justice GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:


In the second trial in this case, a jury in the circuit court of Williamson County convicted defendant of first degree murder. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 9-1. The circuit judge found that defendant's crime was accompanied by exceptionally brutal

Page 985

or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a). Based on this finding, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a). The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction, but modified his sentence to a 60-year prison term. People v. Nitz, 319 Ill.App.3d 949, 969, 254 Ill.Dec. 281, 747 N.E.2d 38 (2001). We directed the appellate court to reconsider its decision. People v. Nitz, 206 Ill.2d 637, 278 Ill.Dec. 810, 799 N.E.2d 675 (2003) (supervisory order). It did so, affirming defendant's life sentence in an unpublished order. People v. Nitz, 353 Ill.App.3d 978, 289 Ill.Dec. 760, 820 N.E.2d 536 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We then directed the appellate court to issue a single published opinion or unpublished order disposing of all issues in defendant's appeal. People v. Nitz, 209 Ill.2d 594, 283 Ill.Dec. 720, 808 N.E.2d 1008 (2004) (supervisory order). In doing so, the appellate court again modified defendant's sentence to a 60-year prison term. 353 Ill.App.3d 978, 1005, 289 Ill. Dec. 760, 820 N.E.2d 536. We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill.2d R. 315. The defendant requested cross-relief. We now reverse the judgment of the appellate court in part, and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was originally convicted in 1988 of the first degree murder of Michael Miley. He was sentenced to death by the circuit court of Williamson County. This court affirmed his conviction and death sentence. People v. Nitz, 143 Ill.2d 82, 157 Ill.Dec. 431, 572 N.E.2d 895 (1991). This court later reversed the trial court's dismissal of defendant's postconviction petition and remanded the cause for a new trial. People v. Nitz, 173 Ill.2d 151, 218 Ill.Dec. 950, 670 N.E.2d 672 (1996). In 1998, defendant was again convicted of first degree murder in this case. Evidence presented at trial indicated that defendant struck Miley repeatedly in the head with a baseball bat, shot him, and severed Miley's head in an attempt to conceal the ballistics evidence. The applicable first degree murder statute read as follows:

"(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:

(1) He either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or

(2) He knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another[.]" Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 9-1.

The jury received three different sets of verdict forms, each addressing a different way that a defendant may commit the offense of first degree murder. The jury found defendant not guilty of killing Miley with the intent to kill or do great bodily harm. It also found defendant not guilty of killing Miley with the knowledge that his acts would cause death or great bodily harm. However, the jury found defendant guilty of killing Miley with the knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.

The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment after the trial judge found that defendant's crime was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty. Section 5-8-1(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections provided the statutory basis for this sentence:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in the statute defining the offense, a sentence of imprisonment for a felony shall be a determinate sentence set by the

Page 986

court under this Section, according to the following limitations:

(1) for first degree murder, (a) a term shall be not less than 20 years and not more than 60 years, or (b) if the court finds that the murder was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty * * *, the court may sentence the defendant to a term of natural life imprisonment * * *." Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a).

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's verdict. Nitz, 319 Ill.App.3d 949, 254 Ill.Dec. 281, 747 N.E.2d 38. However, it reduced defendant's sentence to a 60-year prison term. Nitz, 319 Ill.App.3d at 969, 254 Ill.Dec. 281, 747 N.E.2d 38. The appellate court based this reduction on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Apprendi Court held that "[o]ther 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. In this case, the trial court increased defendant's sentence based on the fact that defendant's crime was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous conduct indicative of wanton cruelty. The trial judge, rather than a jury, made this factual finding. The appellate court held that basing defendant's life sentence on a judge-made finding violated the holding of Apprendi. Nitz, 319 Ill.App.3d at 969, 254 Ill.Dec. 281, 747 N.E.2d 38. The court reduced defendant's sentence to the maximum sentence authorized upon the facts determined by the trial jury. Nitz, 319 Ill.App.3d at 969, 254 Ill.Dec. 281, 747 N.E.2d 38.

In the exercise of this court's supervisory authority, we directed the appellate court to vacate its judgment and reconsider its decision in light of People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335, 273 Ill.Dec. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001), People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352, 272 Ill.Dec. 185, 786 N.E.2d 1019 (2003), People v. Swift, 202 Ill.2d 378, 269 Ill.Dec. 495, 781 N.E.2d 292 (2002), and People v. Kaczmarek, 207 Ill.2d 288, 278 Ill.Dec. 329, 798 N.E.2d 713 (2003). People v. Nitz, 206 Ill.2d 637, 278 Ill.Dec. 810, 799 N.E.2d 675 (2003) (supervisory order). These cases trace the development of this court's approach to Apprendi errors. In Swift, we held that facts taking a sentence for first degree murder above the sentencing range of 20 to 60 years' imprisonment must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Swift, 202 Ill.2d at 392, 269 Ill.Dec. 495, 781 N.E.2d 292. Although we vacated the Swift defendant's extended-term sentence, we have since established that an Apprendi error does not necessarily require resentencing. Rather, the doctrines of harmless error (Thurow, 203 Ill.2d at 368, 272 Ill.Dec. 185, 786 N.E.2d 1019) and plain error (Crespo, 203 Ill.2d at 347, 273 Ill.Dec. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117) apply. In Kaczmarek, we applied plain-error review to affirm a murder defendant's life sentence imposed in violation of Apprendi, concluding that a jury would have found that the crime was committed in a brutal and heinous manner indicative of wanton cruelty. Kaczmarek, 207 Ill.2d at 303-04, 278 Ill.Dec. 329, 798 N.E.2d 713.

In response to our supervisory order, the appellate court issued an unpublished order finding the Apprendi error to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Nitz, 353 Ill.App.3d 978, 289 Ill.Dec. 760, 820 N.E.2d 536 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). This order, however, failed to vacate the appellate court's previous judgment, and failed to address the other issues covered by the court's opinion.

Page 987

We then issued a second supervisory order, directing the appellate court to issue a single published opinion or unpublished order disposing of all issues in defendant's appeal. People v. Nitz, 209 Ill.2d 594, 283 Ill.Dec. 720, 808 N.E.2d 1008 (2004) (supervisory order). Rather than merging its previously issued judgments, the appellate court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Specifically, it asked the parties to address the following question: "[D]oes the United States Supreme Court's recent pronouncements [sic] about the meaning of Apprendi cast doubt upon the continued viability of our Supreme Court's holdings that harmless-error analysis can be applied to jury verdicts that did not reflect a fact necessary to a given punishment?"

After briefing was complete, the appellate court filed a single published opinion. 353 Ill.App.3d 978, 289 Ill.Dec. 760, 820 N.E.2d 536. The opinion affirmed defendant's conviction, applying the same rationale as the original appellate opinion. 353 Ill.App.3d at 980-91, 289 Ill.Dec. 760, 820 N.E.2d 536; see also Nitz, 319 Ill.App.3d 949, 254 Ill.Dec. 281, 747 N.E.2d 38. However, the new opinion's treatment of the Apprendi issue differed markedly.

The new opinion noted that, in the years since defendant's case was first appealed, this court has established that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 cases
  • People v. Mountjoy
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 2016
    ... ... State , 217 So. 3d 1, 89, No. CR131782, 2015 WL 9264157, at *6 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2015) ; Lockuk v. State , 153 P.3d 1012, 1017 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007) ; State v. Hampton , 213 Ariz. 167, 140 P.3d 950, 966 (2006) ; Galindez v. State , 955 So.2d 517, 52324 (Fla. 2007) ; People v. Nitz , 219 Ill.2d 400, 302 Ill.Dec. 418, 848 N.E.2d 982, 995 (2006) (applying plain error); Averitte v. State , 824 N.E.2d 1283, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) ; State v. Reyna , 290 Kan. 666, 234 P.3d 761, 773 (2010) ; State v. Ardoin , 58 So.3d 1025, 104445 (La. Ct. App. 2011) ; People v. Harper , ... ...
  • Gray v. Hardy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 12, 2010
    ... ... right to trial. In December 2001 the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed Gray's ... conviction and sentence. People v. Gray, ... 326 Ill.App.3d 906, 260 Ill.Dec. 681, 761 ... N.E.2d 1237 (2001). The appellate court ... rejected on the merits Gray's challenges ... People v. Nielson, 187 I11.2d 271, 240 111 ... Dec. 650, 718 N.E.2d 131, 148 (1999)); see ... People v. Nitz, 219 I11.2d 400, 302 Ill.Dec ... 418, 848 N.E.2d 982, 994 (2006). Heinous ... behavior is defined as behavior that is ... "hatefully or ... ...
  • State v. Harris
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 2010
    ... ... , 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.2005) (citing Booker after stating that because of the lack of objections below, review is for plain error); People v. Nitz, 219 Ill.2d 400, 412, 848 N.E.2d 982, 302 Ill.Dec. 418 (2006) (stating that Booker allows it to apply plain error review to sentencing ... ...
  • People v. McCarty
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 19, 2006
    ... ... People v. Nitz, 219 Ill.2d 400, 414-15, 302 Ill.Dec. 418, 848 N.E.2d 982 (2006). 6 ...         The foregoing leads me to believe that the court's inconsistent application of the doctrine of procedural default will continue to produce opinions which cannot be harmonized with each other. The ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT