People v. Brown, 48 N.E.3d 694

On July 3, 2013, Joseph Brown (age 20) was arrested for selling heroin; he was charged July 29, 2013 and turned 21 on July 30, 2013.
After a bench trial (Nov. 18, 2013), Brown was found guilty of possession of more than 1 but less than 15 grams of heroin with intent to deliver (Class 1 felony).
At sentencing the State and defense stipulated Brown was eligible for Class X sentencing under 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95(b) based on two prior Class 2 felony convictions; the trial court sentenced him to six years (minimum Class X term).
Brown appealed, arguing he was ineligible for Class X sentencing because he was under 21 when he committed and was charged with the offense; alternatively he argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied; he also raised a mittimus error regarding the offense name.
The appellate court construed section 5-4.5-95(b), found the statute ambiguous as to whether “over the age of 21 years” refers to commission, charging, or conviction, applied the rule of lenity, and held Brown ineligible for Class X sentencing because he was under 21 on the date he was charged.
The court vacated Brown’s Class X sentence and remanded for resentencing on the Class 1 felony; correction of the mittimus was deferred to resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether section 5-4.5-95(b)’s phrase “over the age of 21 years” is measured at time of conviction (sentencing) rather than at time of commission or charging, affecting Class X eligibility	The State: age at conviction controls; Brown was over 21 when convicted so Class X applies	Brown: statute requires offender be over 21 when crime was committed or when charged; he was under 21 then, so Class X does not apply	Court: statute ambiguous; applying definition of “defendant” and rule of lenity, held age is measured at charging (a defendant is a person charged), so Brown was ineligible because he was under 21 when charged; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing
Whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Brown	The State: does not reach this on appeal	Brown: alternatively challenged statute’s constitutionality	Court: did not address constitutionality because it resolved case on statutory construction; remanded for resentencing

People v. Baaree, 315 Ill. App. 3d 1049 (interpreting “convicted” under the statute and applying rule of lenity) (appellate court)
People v. Williams, 358 Ill. App. 3d 363 (held age measured at conviction) (appellate court)
People v. Stokes, 392 Ill. App. 3d 335 (held age measured at conviction) (appellate court)
People v. Storms, 254 Ill. App. 3d 139 (applied last antecedent rule; “over the age of 21 years” modifies “defendant”) (appellate court)
People v. Boyce, 2015 IL 117108 (rule of lenity applies to ambiguous criminal statutes) (Ill. S. Ct.)
People v. Chapman, 2012 IL 111896 (standard of statutory interpretation) (Ill. S. Ct.)