People v. Devenny

Illinois Supreme Court

People v. Devenny

769 N.E.2d 942, 199 Ill. 2d 398, 264 Ill. Dec. 105, 2002 Ill. LEXIS 312

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 18, 2002

Docket91291

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 769 N.E.2d 942 (People v. Devenny) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Devenny, 769 N.E.2d 942, 199 Ill. 2d 398, 264 Ill. Dec. 105, 2002 Ill. LEXIS 312 (Ill. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

JUSTICE THOMAS

delivered the opinion of the court:

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.

BACKGROUND

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. 134 111. 2d R. 603.

ANALYSIS

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 (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 (2000). Whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law that we review de novo. Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d at 418.

This appeal is controlled by our decision People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392 (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. 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.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUSTICE THOMAS

delivered the opinion of the court:

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.

BACKGROUND

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. 134 111. 2d R. 603.

ANALYSIS

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 (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 (2000). Whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law that we review de novo. Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d at 418.

This appeal is controlled by our decision People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392 (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. 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.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 N.E.2d 942, 199 Ill. 2d 398, 264 Ill. Dec. 105, 2002 Ill. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-devenny-ill-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack