Top Banner
Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008
22

Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Dec 15, 2015

Download

Documents

Justus Tappin
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Criminal Sentencing in Illinois

Stephen L. RichardsDeputy Defender

OSAD/DPTAJanuary 11, 2008

Page 2: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Sentencing Checklist

Range ?

Probation?

Consecutive?

Extendable?

Good-time credits?

Treatment?

Boot camp?

Page 3: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Poked in the Eye with A Sharpe Stick

“A defendant may not challenge a penalty under the proportionate penalties clause by comparing it to the penalty for an offense with different elements.”

People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 839 N.E.2d 492 (2005)

Page 4: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Sharpe overrules:

People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392 (firearm add-on for armed robbery)

People v. Moss, 206 Ill. 2d 503 (15 and 20 year add-ons for armed robbery, AVH, and AK)

People v. Morgan (firearm add-on for attempt first degree murder)

Page 5: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63, 871 N.E.2d 1 (2007)

Sharpe applies retroactively to all cases pending on direct appeal at the time Sharpe was decided

15 year add-on for armed robbery with firearm still unconstitutional because of “identical elements” comparison with armed violence

Page 6: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Common “findings” which make offenses nonprobationable

Transactional drug offense involving five or more grams of cocaine

Forcible felony related to the activities of an organized gang

Page 7: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Does Apprendi require these findings to be made by a jury?

See Cunningham v. California, 166 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2007) (where state law sets a presumptive sentence, a finding which allows the judge to go above the presumptive sentence violates Apprendi)

Page 8: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Presumption in favor of probation

Presumption is to be given unless:

imprisonment needed to protect public or

Probation would deprecate the seriousness of the offense

Page 9: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Probation and Apprendi

Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 2002):

Apprendi only applies to findings which raise the maximum, not to findings which raise the minimum

Page 10: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

But . . .

Count the justices:

Majority: Kennedy, Scalia, O’Connor, Breyer, and Rehnquist (two missing)

Minority: Thomas, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg (all still on court)

Page 11: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Thumbnail Sketch of Consecutive sentencing

Mandatory:

class 1, class X, first degree murder and severebodily injury

CSA, ACSA, PCSA

Solicitation, heinous battery, agg bat senior citizen, class X drug case

Bond on bond

Page 12: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Thumbnail sketch of consecutive sentencing

Discretionary:

◦No single course of conduct

◦Needed to protect public

Page 13: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Two rules for severe bodily injury

Severe bodily injury must be part of triggering murder, class X felony, or class 1, not part of nontriggering offense. People v. Whitney, 188 Ill. 2d 91 (1999)

But SBI can be inherent in or element of triggering offense, People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (2004)

Page 14: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

What is SBI?

Nick or cut on arm, caused by gunshot?

Fractured big toe, caused by gunshot?

Injury to knee, “sharp pain,” caused by gunshot?

Grazed right cheek? Caused by gunshot?

Page 15: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Single course of conduct?

Independent motivation test

Or: time lapse, proximity, number of victims

Page 16: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

Apprendi – Where are we?

Not retroactive – Schiro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 556 (2002)

Doesn’t apply to consecutive sentencing. People v. Carney, 196 Ill. 2d 518 (2001)

Doesn’t apply to good time credits – People v. Bell, 327 Ill. App. 3d 328

Doesn’t require indictment – People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352

Doesn’t apply to recidivist cases.Can be waived and/or harmless

Page 17: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

New Apprendi SC rule

(g) Proceedings When an Enhanced Sentence is Sought. When the death penalty is not being sought and the State intends, for the purpose of sentencing, to rely on one or more sentencing enhancement factors which are subject to the notice and proof requirements of section 111-3(c-5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court may, within its discretion, conduct a unitary trial through verdict on the issue of guilt and on the issue of whether a sentencing enhancement factor exists. The court may also, within its discretion, upon motion of a party, conduct a bifurcated trial. In deciding whether to conduct such a bifurcated trial, the court must first hold a pretrial hearing to determine if proof of the sentencing enhancement factor is not relevant to the question of guilt or if undue prejudice outweighs the factor's probative value.

RULE 415(G)

Page 18: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

New Apprendi instructions may have flaw

While it would have been preferable to have used a more precise instruction and verdict form in order to communicate to the jury that a single juror's “no” vote would prevent an affirmative verdict of brutal or heinous conduct, we find no abuse of discretion.

People v. Starnes  374 Ill.App.3d 132, *142, 869 N.E.2d 834, **844, 311 Ill.Dec. 821, ***831 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.,2007)

Page 19: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.

A judge’s finding at a sentencing hearing.

I find that the defendant deserves a harsh sentence. She has not spoken at this sentencing hearing and has not expressed remorse. She went to trial. Her witnesses perjured themselves. Her family disrupted this courtroom. If she is put on probation she may become pregnant. She is unemployed, she lives her boyfriend, she is HIV positive, and she is an unwed mother. She stole property, so she received compensation for committing this offense.

Page 20: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.
Page 21: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.
Page 22: Criminal Sentencing in Illinois Stephen L. Richards Deputy Defender OSAD/DPTA January 11, 2008.