People v. Edwards , 2015 IL App (3d) 130190 ( 2015 )

Illinois Official Reports
Appellate Court
People v. Edwards, 2015 IL App (3d) 130190
Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Caption MATTHEW T. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No. Third District
Docket No. 3-13-0190
Filed May 6, 2015
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 09-CF-1559; the
Review Hon. Amy Bertani-Tomczak, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed as modified.
Counsel on Bryon Kohut (argued), of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of
Appeal Ottawa, for appellant.
James Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Judith Z. Kelly (argued),
of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the
People.
Panel JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Wright concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Following a stipulated bench trial, the Will County circuit court found defendant, Matthew
Edwards, guilty of first-degree murder and attempted murder.
¶2 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming his confession to police was
involuntary based on the fact that he was 17 years old at the time, had a fifth-grade reading
level, suffered from various mental disorders, and that the investigating officers did not allow
him to speak to his mother or another concerned adult despite his request to do so. The trial
court denied the motion.
¶3 The matter proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, following which the trial court found
defendant guilty of both first-degree murder and attempted murder. The State dismissed the
aggravated battery with a firearm, home invasion, and armed robbery counts.
¶4 In the sentencing phase, the State sought enhanced sentences on both charges given that
defendant personally discharged a firearm causing both death and great bodily harm. The trial
court found that the State proved the enhancement factors and subsequently sentenced
defendant to 50 years on the murder conviction and 40 years on the attempted murder
conviction.
¶5 On March 13, 2013, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, arguing that it was
excessive. The court denied the motion.
¶6 Defendant appeals, claiming, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion
to suppress where defendant was 17 years old at the time of the arrest, had a limited education,
and did not have contact with a parent or concerned adult; (2) the trial court erred when it failed
to hold the statutorily required fitness hearing after it found a bona fide doubt of his fitness to
stand trial; (3) the defendant’s 90-year sentence is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), prohibiting offenders under the age of 18 from receiving
mandatory life sentences; and (4) defendant is entitled to an additional day of presentence
incarceration credit.
¶7 We affirm as modified.
¶8 BACKGROUND
¶9 The State charged defendant, along with codefendants Ashley Hill, Mary Vetor, and Jason
Orasco, by indictment with three counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted
murder, one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, two counts of home invasion, and one
count of armed robbery. The State named Jason Terdic as the victim in the murder, armed
robbery, and first home invasion charges. The State named Lauren Vasilakis as the victim of
the attempted murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and second home invasion charges.
The court appointed the public defender to represent defendant.
-2-
¶ 10 On September 1, 2009, defendant filed a motion for the appointment of an expert to
determine his fitness to stand trial and whether he was legally sane at the time of the alleged
offenses. Defendant tendered a proposed order to the court indicating that the State had no
objection.
¶ 11 The court ordered Dr. Randi Zoot to examine defendant, determine if he was fit to stand
trial, and if he was legally sane at the time of the offenses. The order stated, “[t]his matter
coming on for hearing on defendant’s motion for expert witness and for fitness hearing, and for
other relief, said motion being uncontested by the People of the State of Illinois, and the court
finding that a bona fide doubt exist [sic] as to defendant’s fitness to stand trial *** it is hereby
ordered” that Dr. Zoot examine defendant.
¶ 12 Ultimately, Dr. Zoot filed a report finding defendant fit to stand trial and sane at the time of
the alleged offenses.
¶ 13 On November 29, 2010, defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements/confession to
the police. The following testimony was elicited at the hearing on the motion.
¶ 14 Detectives Jamie Marquez and Chris Georgeff, both of the Will County and Grundy
County major crimes task force, testified that on July 7, 2009, they were dispatched to 512
Cayuga Street in Joliet to assist the Channahon police. Approximately 12 armed officers were
there to execute an arrest warrant for Jason Orasco. Sergeant Talmontes directed Marquez and
Georgeff to take defendant to the Channahon police department.
¶ 15 Marquez testified that prior to being taken to the police station, defendant voluntarily
submitted to a gunshot residue (GSR) test. Georgeff could not recall if defendant submitted to
a GSR test. Defendant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the station. The officers, both of
whom were armed at the time, did not handcuff defendant. Defendant rode in the front seat of
the squad car on the way to the station.
¶ 16 Defendant’s interview began at 5:45 p.m. Marquez read defendant the Miranda warnings
line-by-line. Defendant indicated he understood his rights, initialed each line, and signed the
form. Both officers were aware that defendant had just turned 17 years old.
¶ 17 At first, the detectives were only trying to gather facts on defendant’s whereabouts on July
7, 2009. They knew that Joshua Terdic had been shot in the head and was in critical condition
at the time of the interview. Defendant initially told officers he was not in Channahon on July
7.
¶ 18 The officers left the room to speak with the detectives who were interviewing Hill, Vetor
and Orasco. Afterward, Marquez and Georgeff confronted defendant with the codefendants’
statements indicating that defendant was, in fact, in Channahon on the day of the incident.
¶ 19 Defendant’s initial statements were not recorded as officers were unsure at that time
whether he was a suspect. Georgeff stated that he and Marquez did not record the entire
interview because they did not believe they were required to do so. Once defendant agreed to
give a recorded statement, the last 30 minutes of the interview (which included defendant’s
confession) were recorded.
¶ 20 According to Marquez, defendant did not request to speak to his mother. Georgeff could
not recall if defendant asked to speak with his mother or if the police offered to allow
defendant to call his mother. Marquez and Georgeff were trained as juvenile officers. Georgeff
testified that he was “absolutely” acting in defendant’s best interests. On re-cross-examination,
-3-
defense counsel inquired if Georgeff was only doing what was minimally required to be in
defendant’s best interests, to which Georgeff responded, “Sure.”
¶ 21 Throughout the course of defendant’s detainment and interrogation, he was not beaten or
slapped, he was allowed to use the restroom, and he was allowed food and water if he so
desired. Officers did not inquire as to whether or not defendant had trouble reading or suffered
from any mental illness. Defendant did not volunteer this information, nor did he appear to be
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Marquez testified they never informed defendant that
his GSR test came back positive, though Georgeff could not recall.
¶ 22 The interrogation took place in a conference room, not an interview room. The door was
not locked. Despite that, defendant would probably not have been able to leave the building.
The interrogation concluded at 8:16 p.m.
¶ 23 Once officers indicated to defendant that his friends placed him at the scene of the crime,
he subsequently gave a statement, which he agreed to have recorded. The tape began at 7:50
p.m. and ended at 8:16 p.m.
¶ 24 The State offered the digital versatile disc (DVD) of defendant’s confession into evidence
and the trial judge watched it in her chambers. In the DVD, defendant acknowledged receiving
his Miranda rights and answered affirmatively that he knew all his rights. Defendant gave the
following narrative of the events of the previous night/early morning of July 7.
¶ 25 He was drinking with friends at Mary Vetor’s house, went to sleep, and was awakened by
Jason. Jason knew a place where they could get money and drugs. Defendant said, “Okay, let’s
go.” Ashley and Mary drove the two men; Mary got a ticket while parked outside. Jason
grabbed a shovel, which defendant used to break into the apartment. Defendant then unlocked
the bedroom door with a knife he had taken from the kitchen.
¶ 26 The sleeping couple woke up while defendant and Jason searched for money and drugs.
Jason said to tie them up, so defendant and Jason did so. Jason hit the male victim in the knee
with a baseball bat, breaking the bat. Jason had brought the bat and the gun. The victims were
screaming and Jason told defendant to shoot, to “Just do it.” Jason ordered the male victim to
put his head under the pillow. Defendant just wanted to scare the male victim and, as Jason was
yelling at defendant to shoot and kill him, defendant shot at the pillow. He then lifted the
pillow off the male victim, saw blood on the pillow, put it over the female victim’s head, and
fired two shots. Defendant then left through the window.
¶ 27 Jason wore a mask, hoodie, and rubber gloves; defendant wore baseball gloves. Defendant
gave Jason the gun, which they threw away as they walked to a cabin. Jason and defendant
texted Ashley and Mary to come pick them up. The four then returned home to Mary’s house.
¶ 28 In response to questions during the interrogation, defendant stated he was sorry Joshua
Terdic got hurt and he knew he would “have to do something for it,” but hoped it would be a
low charge. Defendant offered to help find evidence. At the conclusion of the video he stated,
“I told mom I’d see her for her birthday and I don’t like lying,” but acknowledged he had lied
initially to cover his tracks. He did not want to get anyone else in trouble. Finally, he
acknowledged that he went to the police station voluntarily, he had not been handcuffed, no
promises had been made, he had been given his Miranda rights, and he had been offered drinks
and the use of the bathroom. When officers asked if defendant was hungry, he responded that
he was a little bit hungry and the officers stated they would get him some food. The DVD
concluded at 8:16 p.m.
-4-
¶ 29 The hearing resumed the next day. Defendant testified that on July 7, 2009, he was 17 years
old and was living at Mary Vetor’s house. He, along with Jason Orasco, Ashley Hill, Mary and
Mary’s mother were at the house when police came with an arrest warrant for Jason. The police
requested that all household members come outside; defendant complied. Officers directed
defendant to stand by one of the squad cars and told him they were going to do a quick GSR
test. Afterward, officers asked defendant if he would accompany them down to the station to
answer some questions about the shooting. Defendant agreed and went voluntarily. He sat in
the front seat of an unmarked squad car and was not handcuffed. Defendant felt he could not
decline the officers’ invitation.
¶ 30 Upon arriving at the station, officers placed defendant in a conference room. Defendant
had been living at Mary’s house for a couple months; he did not live with his mother.
Defendant testified that as soon as he got to the station he asked to speak with his mother,
telling officers it was her birthday “to get their attention.” He did not know how else to
convince them to allow him to speak to her. The officers did not allow defendant to call his
mother, saying “after the interview.” Defendant was not physically touched.
¶ 31 Defendant originally denied being in Channahon. The officers left the room and returned
two or three minutes later. Midway through the second interview, officers informed defendant
the GSR test came back positive and that his friends implicated him in the incident.
Defendant’s photos were taken for a lineup. Shortly thereafter, defendant gave a statement and
agreed to go on video to record the confession.
¶ 32 When asked about specifics of the interrogation on direct, defendant testified that Marquez
told him that he did not like it when Georgeff gets angry because he has difficulty calming him
down. Georgeff leaned over defendant and spoke in a loud voice. Sometimes the interview was
confrontational, sometimes it was not. Prior to the shooting, defendant had never been
confronted by the police, been in a police station, or been incarcerated. He had had two
previous run-ins with the police, but his mother was present and he was never arrested. The
police told him that he was going to serve some time in prison, but the officers did not say how
much. Defendant was afraid of the detectives.
¶ 33 Defendant attended the second half of his freshman year of high school, receiving mostly
Ds and Fs. His sophomore year he got Ds and Fs the first semester, but did better his second
semester because his grandfather made a concerted effort to help him. Defendant took special
education classes. He dropped out toward the end of his sophomore year because he felt he did
not need school. He read at a fifth- or sixth-grade level. He suffered from attention deficit
disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hindering his ability to
learn.
¶ 34 Defendant had also been hospitalized previously and was subsequently diagnosed with a
mood disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression. Defendant had been prescribed
medication–Depakote–for the disorders. When he was on the medication, he felt that he could
understand better and felt more in control. On July 7, he was not taking Depakote. Defendant
stopped taking the medication in March or April of 2008 because he could no longer afford it.
He testified that being unmedicated affected his ability to understand the interview.
¶ 35 Defendant knew the meaning of the words “you have the right to remain silent.” He did not
know what the word “attorney” meant. Defendant had heard of the word “lawyer,” but was not
familiar with the word “attorney.”
-5-
¶ 36 After dropping out of high school, defendant enrolled in the Lincoln’s Challenge Academy
in order to help control his disorders. The first two weeks of the program consisted of vigorous
physical exercise programs. He did not, however, pass his reading, writing or mathematics
courses because he had a hard time paying attention and could not understand. Defendant
ultimately graduated from the program; one could graduate by not causing trouble.
¶ 37 Janice Edwards, defendant’s mother, testified that she was living with her parents on July
7, 2009, and that defendant was not living with her. The police did not contact her when they
took defendant into custody. She learned of the incident on July 8, when her brother told her to
look at the newspaper and she saw an article stating that defendant had been arrested in
connection with a shooting.
¶ 38 Edwards stated that defendant could not read or write very well, and he could not spell. He
understood children’s books. Defendant would not understand the word “attorney,” but he
would probably understand the word “lawyer.” Defendant suffered from mental health
problems throughout his life. He had been in trouble with the police a couple of years before
the shooting. Though prescribed medication for his disorders, she could not afford them and
public aid would not cover the medications because she made too much money.
¶ 39 Defendant got into the Lincoln’s Challenge Academy with the help of his high school
counselor. Defendant did well in the program, as it provided the structure he needed. He did
not do well in the academic portion of the program, and he failed the GED test miserably.
Defendant did not attend his high school classes because he did not know what was going on.
¶ 40 After the Lincoln program, defendant lived with his older brother. He was not welcome at
his grandparents’ home because he had been stealing. According to his mother, at 16 years old,
defendant made his own arrangements.
¶ 41 At the conclusion of argument, the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The court
specifically found that at 17 years old, defendant was not at a tender age. In viewing the DVD,
the court found defendant articulate, he used appropriate words, and his responses showed an
ability to understand the questions posed to him. While defendant lied about it being his
mother’s birthday, apparently in order to see her, the court did not find that dispositive.
Defendant had stopped taking medications for his various disorders over a year before the
interrogation. His records from Joliet High School showed that defendant had an above
average learning potential. The records further indicated that defendant was not
developmentally delayed, nor did he suffer from any type of learning, speech, or hearing
impairment. Under the totality of the circumstances and based upon the credibility of the
witnesses, the court found that defendant’s statement was voluntary.
¶ 42 The State then filed a notice of intent to seek enhanced sentences on the first-degree murder
and attempted murder charges based on the fact that defendant personally discharged a firearm
causing both death and great bodily harm. On December 12, 2014, the cause proceeded by way
of a stipulated bench trial. The State dismissed the home invasion, aggravated battery, and
armed robbery charges.
¶ 43 Both parties presented a number of stipulations as to evidence, testimony of the witnesses,
and transcripts from the trials of Mary Vetor and Jason Orasco.
¶ 44 The evidence tended to show that defendant and Jason Orasco broke into Terdic’s home in
the early morning hours of July 7 looking for money and drugs. When they found only a small
amount of both, they woke up the sleeping couple and demanded more. Vasilakis recognized
-6-
Orasco’s voice because she had known him for several years through her sister. She picked
defendant out of a lineup as the man who was holding the gun most of the time. Terdic and
Vasilakis were tied up, ordered to lie on their stomachs, and a pillow was placed over their
heads. Defendant asked if they should use the bat to try to knock out the victims. Orasco said
“no” and that defendant should just “do it.” Vasilakis felt someone on the bed over Terdic, who
was lying next to her, and then she heard a shot. The person got up, went around the bed, and
got on top of her. She heard two clicks and a bang, and then she realized she had been shot.
After defendant and Orasco left, Vasilakis untied herself and had the neighbor call the police.
¶ 45 The trial court found defendant guilty and that the State had proved the enhancement
factors.
¶ 46 On February 27, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to 50 years on the murder conviction
and 40 years on the attempted murder conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively to
one another. The court further awarded defendant custody credit from July 8, 2009, to
February 27, 2013.
¶ 47 Defendant subsequently filed a motion to reduce his sentence, arguing that it was
excessive. The court denied the motion.
¶ 48 Defendant appeals.
¶ 49 ANALYSIS
¶ 50 I. Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
¶ 51 Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
Specifically, that his statement cannot be considered voluntary where he was 17 years old at
the time, had a limited education, read only at a fifth- or sixth-grade level, did not have contact
with a parent or other concerned adult, and had minimal prior contacts with the police.
¶ 52 When faced with a challenge to a circuit court’s ruling on the voluntariness of a confession,
a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are against the
manifest weight of the evidence. However, the ultimate ruling on whether a confession was
voluntary is reviewed under the de novo standard. People v. Murdock, 2012 IL 112362, ¶ 29.
¶ 53 Illinois courts have long recognized that receiving a confession from a juvenile is a
“sensitive concern.” People v. Prude, 66 Ill. 2d 470, 476 (1977); Murdock, 2012 IL 112362, As
a consequence, “ ‘the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary, in
the sense not only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not the product of
ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair.’ ” People v. Simmons, 60 Ill. 2d
173, 180 (1975) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55 (1967)). Due to these concerns, an
additional factor is recognized that is not present in cases involving confessions by adults. This
factor, commonly known as the “concerned adult” factor, considers whether the juvenile,
either before or during the interrogation, had an opportunity to consult with an adult interested
in his welfare. In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37, 54-55 (2000).
¶ 54 Thus, in determining whether a juvenile’s confession was voluntarily given, relevant
considerations include: (1) the juvenile’s age, intelligence, background, experience, education,
mental capacity, and physical condition at the time of questioning; (2) the duration of the
detention, including whether the police physically or mentally abused the juvenile or employed
trickery or deceit in obtaining the confession; and (3) whether the juvenile had an opportunity
to speak with a parent or other concerned adult prior to or during the interrogation, including
-7-
whether the police prevented or frustrated such opportunities. Murdock, 2012 IL 112362,
¶¶ 30-32. No single factor is dispositive; rather, the courts must consider the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the confession. Id. ¶ 30.
¶ 55 While we acknowledge that defendant suffered from some mental health disorders and did
not finish high school, based upon our review of the record, the trial court’s factual findings
and prevailing case law on the subject, we cannot find that the trial court erred in denying
defendant’s motion to suppress.
¶ 56 Defendant places a great amount of emphasis on the fact that he did not have contact with a
concerned adult during the interrogation. He argues that the concerned adult factor weighs
heavily in his case, where the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) provides:
“A law enforcement officer who arrests a minor without a warrant under Section 5-401
shall, if the minor is not released, immediately make a reasonable attempt to notify the
parent or other person legally responsible for the minor’s care or the person with whom
the minor resides that the minor has been arrested and where the minor is being held;
and the law enforcement officer shall without unnecessary delay take the minor to the
nearest juvenile police officer designated for these purposes in the county of venue or
shall surrender the minor to a juvenile police officer in the city or village where the
offense is alleged to have been committed.” 705 ILCS 405/5-405(2) (West 2008).
¶ 57 We note, however, that defendant was not subject to the provisions of the Act at the time of
the shooting and subsequent interrogation, where section 5-120 provided that the relevant
provisions of the Act applied to minors who violated or attempted to violate the law prior to
their seventeenth birthday. 705 ILCS 405/5-120 (West 2008). Defendant was 17 years old at
the time of the incident in July of 2009. Pursuant to Public Act 98-61 (eff. Jan. 1, 2014), the
legislature amended section 5-120 to apply to 17-year-olds. Pub. Act 98-61, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1,
2014) (amending 705 ILCS 405/5-120 (West 2012)). This change occurred 4½ years after
defendant’s interrogation.
¶ 58 Defendant concedes he falls outside the purview of the Act, but notwithstanding that,
argues that the concerned adult factor still applies to him on common law grounds, citing
People v. Westmorland, 372 Ill. App. 3d 868, 880 (2007). Westmorland, however, is readily
distinguishable from the case at bar. In Westmorland, the 17-year-old defendant charged with
multiple sex offenses moved to suppress his statements to police as involuntary. The trial court
granted the motion, noting that despite the fact that defendant was 17 years old, “ ‘[h]e appears
not to be a very mature 17.’ ” Id. at 874. Defendant struck the court as being somewhat
immature, a little bit pudgy with rosy cheeks. Id. The court further observed defendant as under
6 feet tall, wide-eyed, frightened, with no noticeable facial hair. Id.
¶ 59 By comparison, the interviewing officer was an imposing figure, well over 6 feet tall, over
200 pounds, fit and muscular, and with a dominant personality. Id. The court also found that
the defendant was handcuffed and abandoned in the interrogation room, the officer used
threatening language, and that the officers engaged in some deception during the interview
when they led defendant to believe that if he cooperated he could go home. Police refused
defendant’s two requests to contact his mother and made no effort themselves to contact
defendant’s parents before or during the interview. Id. at 890. The appellate court affirmed,
noting that the Act did not restrict the factors to be considered under the common
law/constitutional voluntariness inquiry. Id. at 880. Applying the concerned adult factor, the
-8-
court found that under the totality of the circumstances, the State did not prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s confession was voluntary. Id.
¶ 60 We are confronted with a very different scenario here. The trial court reviewed the
interview tape twice and observed defendant during his testimony on the motion to suppress.
The trial court thoroughly and methodically considered the factors of defendant’s age,
intelligence, background, experience, mental capacity, education and physical condition at the
time of questioning. Defendant was no wide-eyed, 17-year-old that appeared immature. Quite
the opposite, defendant responded appropriately to questioning and was articulate, both during
the interview and in his testimony during the suppression hearing. While there was some
allusion to force and deception on the part of officers in Westmorland, there was no such
behavior exhibited by officers here. Both Marquez and Georgeff were trained juvenile officers,
and Georgeff testified that they acted in defendant’s best interests. That Marquez and Georgeff
only recorded the confession portion of defendant’s interview does not render the statement
involuntary. The trial court clearly found the officers’ testimony credible that they initially
only brought defendant in to establish his whereabouts and ask a few questions.
¶ 61 Finally, the officers were not bound by the dictates of the Act to contact defendant’s
mother or to allow him to speak with a concerned adult. Even when considering the concerned
adult factor as one of many when determining the voluntariness of a confession, our supreme
court has specifically held that a juvenile confession should not be suppressed simply because
he was denied the opportunity to confer with a concerned adult. In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 55.
Here, there were conflicting accounts from defendant and the officers regarding whether or not
he requested to speak with his mother. The trial court found that the fact defendant did not
speak with his mother or another concerned adult was not dispositive. Based on the totality of
the circumstances presented, we agree. The trial court’s factual findings are not against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we find that defendant’s statements were
voluntary and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.
¶ 62 II. Bona Fide Doubt of Defendant’s Fitness to Stand Trial
¶ 63 Defendant contends that after the trial court signed an order finding a bona fide doubt of
defendant’s fitness and ordering a psychological evaluation, the trial court erred when it failed
to hold the statutorily required fitness hearing before proceeding to the stipulated bench trial.
Despite his failure to object at trial or addressing it in his posttrial motion, defendant contends
we should review this issue under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine. Without
addressing defendant’s alleged forfeiture of the issue or mentioning plain-error review, the
State argues that the trial court did not actually raise or find a bona fide doubt of defendant’s
fitness, but merely granted defendant’s motion for a fitness examination.
¶ 64 First, the plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when
one of two conditions is met:
“ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the
error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the
seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so
serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity
of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Walker,
232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 (2009) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)).
-9-
¶ 65 “Under both prongs of the plain-error doctrine, the burden of persuasion remains with
defendant.” Id. (citing People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)). The initial step in
conducting plain-error analysis is to determine whether error occurred at all. People v. Hudson,
228 Ill. 2d 181, 191 (2008). We are therefore obligated to conduct a substantive review of the
issue. See People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003).
¶ 66 Here, defendant’s claim implicates section 104-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
1963 (the Code), which provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“(a) The issue of the defendant’s fitness for trial, *** may be raised by the defense, the
State or the Court at any appropriate time before a plea is entered or before, during, or
after trial. When a bona fide doubt of the defendant’s fitness is raised, the court shall
order a determination of the issue before proceeding further.
(b) Upon request of the defendant that a qualified expert be appointed to examine
him or her to determine prior to trial if a bona fide doubt as to his or her fitness to stand
trial may be raised, the court, in its discretion, may order an appropriate examination.
However, no order entered pursuant to this subsection shall prevent further proceedings
in the case. An expert so appointed shall examine the defendant and make a report as
provided in Section 104-15. Upon the filing with the court of a verified statement of
services rendered, the court shall enter an order on the county board to pay such expert
a reasonable fee stated in the order.” 725 ILCS 5/104-11 (West 2012).
¶ 67 Also at issue is section 104-13, under which defendant originally brought his motion for
fitness hearing and for appointment of an expert witness to determine defendant’s sanity. That
section provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“(a) When the issue of fitness involves the defendant’s mental condition, the court
shall order an examination of the defendant by one or more licensed physicians,
clinical psychologists, or psychiatrists chosen by the court.” 725 ILCS 5/104-13 (West
2012).
¶ 68 The parties dispute whether or not the trial court expressly made a finding that a bona fide
doubt of fitness existed. This is based in large part on the fact that the signed order, drafted by
defense counsel, states: “This matter coming on for hearing on defendant’s motion for expert
witness and for fitness hearing, and for other relief, said motion being uncontested by the
People of the State of Illinois, and the Court finding that a bonafide doubt exist [sic] as to
Defendant’s fitness to stand trial under 725 ILCS 5/104-13 et seq.”
¶ 69 We agree with the State and find People v. Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d 212 (2004), directly on
point. In Hanson, our supreme court determined that a grant of a defense motion for a
psychological evaluation, without more, does not create a sufficient inference that the trial
court found bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness to stand trial such that the trial court would
be required to hold a fitness hearing before proceeding.
¶ 70 Specifically, the court noted that the defense motion referred only to section 104-13(a) of
the Code (725 ILCS 5/104-13(a) (West 2012)) and made no reference to section 104-11(a) or
(b). Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 218. Section 104-13(a) only specifies who may be appointed to
examine a defendant when the question of fitness involves mental health issues and can be
used in conjunction with section 104-11(a) or (b). Id. at 219. Thus, the language in defendant’s
own motion failed to advance his argument that the trial court was bound to hold a fitness
hearing under section 104-11(a). Id. at 219-20.
- 10 -
¶ 71 Similarly, defendant here brought his motion pursuant to section 104-13(a), requesting that
the court appoint a qualified expert to evaluate defendant’s fitness to stand trial, not under
104-11(a). Although the order the court signed contained the language “bona fide doubt,” it
was defendant who drafted this order. A review of the record gives us no indication whatsoever
that the trial court or the State implicitly agreed with defense counsel, or raised on their own a
bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness. We note that under Hanson, even if defendant filed a
motion under section 104-11(a), the trial court could specify its need for a fitness examination
by an expert to aid in its determination of whether a bona fide doubt is raised without a fitness
hearing becoming mandatory. Id. at 217. Considering that contemporaneously with the
substance of defendant’s motion, we find that defendant merely requested an expert
evaluation.
¶ 72 Finally, this situation is a far cry from that of People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236 (2004),
where the court raised sua sponte a bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness to stand trial after
defendant’s first psychological evaluation and defendant’s expression of dissatisfaction with
the public defender and repeated requests to represent himself. Id. at 238. The trial court
further articulated its concern regarding defendant’s potential for “ ‘outbursts.’ ” Id. at 241. By
contrast, although the order drafted here was inartful, we find the court’s oral comments and
actions reflect that the issue of fitness had been raised, and it ordered a fitness evaluation to
assist in determining whether a bona fide doubt as to fitness actually existed. This
determination is bolstered by the fact that nothing in the record supported a conclusion that
defendant was unfit.
¶ 73 We accordingly find no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s decision to proceed to
trial without holding a fitness hearing.
¶ 74 III. Sentencing
¶ 75 Defendant also contends that his 90-year sentence amounts to a de facto life sentence in
violation of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), which prohibits the
imposition of a mandatory life sentence on offenders under the age of 18. Despite failing to
raise this issue during sentencing or in his later motion to reduce sentence, defendant argues
the court can review a challenge to the constitutionality of a sentencing scheme at any time.
People v. Ruiz, 342 Ill. App. 3d 750, 762 (2003).
¶ 76 The State counters that those cases cited by defendant, Miller v. Alabama, Graham v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), and People v. Miller,
202 Ill. 2d 328 (2008), are all distinguishable, insofar as they all dealt with the imposition on
minor defendants of either a mandatory natural life sentence without the possibility of parole
or a death sentence. The State argues that this court should not expand that line of cases to
include mandatory sentencing schemes that do not impose either the death penalty or life
without parole. We agree.
¶ 77 Defendant faced a mandatory minimum term of 45 years for first-degree murder (a 20-year
minimum term plus 25 years to life firearm enhancement). See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-20(a),
5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2008). For attempted murder, defendant faced a mandatory minimum
term of 31 years (a 6-year minimum term plus 25-years-to-life firearm enhancement). See 730
ILCS 5/5-4.5-25 (West 2008); 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a)(1) (West 2008); 730 ILCS
5/5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2008). These terms must be served consecutively (730 ILCS
- 11 -
5/5-8-4(a)(i) (West 2008)). Defendant was therefore subject to a mandatory minimum term of
76 years’ imprisonment.
¶ 78 The thrust of defendant’s argument on appeal is that this 76-year minimum is
unconstitutional. However, the trial court did not sentence defendant to the minimum; it
sentenced him to 90 years’ imprisonment, or 14 years over the mandatory minimum. The
50-year sentence on the murder charge exceeded the statutory minimum by 5 years. The
40-year sentence on the attempted murder exceeded the statutory minimum by 9 years.
¶ 79 Defendant cites to no case law, nor has our research uncovered any, that allows a defendant
to argue that a sentence he did not actually receive is unconstitutional. Defendant does not
argue that the 90-year sentence is unconstitutional, nor does he contend that the sentence is
excessive or that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing it. Had the trial court
sentenced defendant to the mandatory minimum of 76 years, we would have a different case.
We point out that virtually every sentence has a mandatory minimum. It makes no difference to
our analysis here if the mandatory minimum sentence was 30 years or 76 years, where
defendant was not sentenced to the minimum. There is no indication that even had the
minimum sentence been a hypothetical 30 years, the trial judge in this case would not have
sentenced defendant to 90 years for what amounted to the execution of one individual and the
attempted execution of another.
¶ 80 Notably, Miller v. Alabama did not hold that a juvenile could never be sentenced to life.
Rather, it held that a statutory scheme which makes the imposition of life without parole
mandatory for the sentencing court, i.e., the court has no discretion to consider the mitigating
factor of the offender’s juvenile status, is prohibited by the eighth amendment. Miller, 567 U.S.
at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. Miller is distinguishable in at least two critical ways. First, the
Arkansas and Alabama statutes at issue in that case differ markedly from the sentencing
provisions at play in this case, insofar as the trial court’s discretion is limited to choosing
between death or life imprisonment without parole. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-104(b) (1997)
(“A defendant convicted of capital murder or treason shall be sentenced to death or life
imprisonment without parole.”); see also Ala. Code §§ 13A-5-40(9), 13A-6-2(c) (1982)
(providing that murder is a Class A felony, the punishment for which is death or life
imprisonment without parole). Second, here, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term
above the mandatory minimum. That is, in Miller defendants complained of the sentences
handed them.
¶ 81 In this appeal, defendant argues only that the mandatory minimum sentences are
unconstitutional. We reject defendant’s attempts to attack the constitutionality of sentences he
did not receive.
¶ 82 IV. Presentence Incarceration Credit
¶ 83 Defendant argues, and the State concedes, that he is entitled to one additional day of
pre-sentence incarceration credit. Defendant was taken into custody on July 7, 2009, but the
trial court’s judgment ordered that defendant be given presentence incarceration credit from
July 8, 2009. Pursuant to People v. Smith, 258 Ill. App. 3d 261, 264 (1994), a defendant held in
custody for even part of a day, including the day he was arrested, must be given sentence credit
for that day.
- 12 -
¶ 84 Accordingly, we direct the trial court to grant defendant one extra day of presentence
incarceration credit.
¶ 85 CONCLUSION
¶ 86 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed as
modified.
¶ 87 Affirmed as modified.
¶ 88 JUSTICE WRIGHT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶ 89 I agree on all issues except the issue regarding whether a bona fide doubt existed
concerning defendant’s fitness to stand trial. Like the author, I am troubled that the State has
not addressed defendant’s admission of forfeiture and defendant’s request for this court to
excuse forfeiture based on the second prong of plain error. Instead, the State argues the court
order, which included a finding that a bona fide doubt concerning this young offender’s fitness
existed, should be ignored by this court. According to the State, the trial court did not intend to
find a bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness to stand trial, despite the language contained in its
order.
¶ 90 I am reluctant to ignore the trial court’s explicit finding, as clearly and unequivocally stated
in the written order dated September 4, 2009. I must assume that even though the defense
drafted the order signed by the judge, both the prosecutor and the court had an opportunity to
read and either approve or reject the language contained in the proposed order. Absent some
allegation of fraud on the part of defense counsel, I presume the trial court intended to include
that finding in its written court order. Moreover, the prosecutor had a chance to strike this
language from the written order and failed to do so, thereby acquiescing in the order’s contents.
¶ 91 I respectfully suggest the court should have taken great care to resolve the fitness issue
after ordering a fitness examination. In fact, the court’s oversight, under these circumstances,
could have had drastic consequences impacting the viability of defendant’s convictions in the
event of an appeal. An unresolved issue regarding defendant’s fitness typically requires this
court to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant a new trial. See People v. Hill,
297 Ill. App. 3d 500, 514 (1998). Hence, once this trial judge ordered a fitness examination, it
was incumbent on the trial court to ensure a fitness hearing occurred.
¶ 92 I note it has been more than one year since defendant’s December 10, 2012, trial and the
subsequent sentencing hearing. Under these circumstances, our supreme court has cautioned
that a retrospective fitness hearing would normally be inadequate to protect defendant’s rights
when more than one year has passed since defendant’s original trial and sentencing. People v.
Neal, 179 Ill. 2d 541, 554 (1997). However, as recognized by Neal, in certain cases the issue of
defendant’s fitness or lack of fitness at the time of trial may be fairly and accurately determined
long after the fact. 179 Ill. 2d at 554. I submit, this is such a case, since defendant does not
contend on appeal that he was actually unfit to stand trial. Therefore, unlike the majority, I
conclude a retrospective fitness hearing is required based on the second prong of plain error,
which the State has not addressed or contested on appeal.
¶ 93 Consequently, I respectfully disagree with the author’s conclusion that the written order
contained an unintended factual finding by the court, such that the trial court did not find a
- 13 -
bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness existed. For these reasons, I suggest the trial court erred
when it failed to conduct a fitness hearing prior to defendant’s trial and this structural error
cannot be subject to forfeiture. In conclusion, I observe the proper remedy in this case is a
retrospective fitness hearing and, if the trial court determines defendant was unfit to stand trial
after the retrospective hearing, I would direct the trial court to vacate defendant’s convictions
and set the matter for a new trial.
- 14 -