People v. Douglas
2017 IL App (4th) 120617
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Shamere L. Douglas pled guilty to aggravated battery and was sentenced to 10 years, consecutive to another case; plea dismissed two other charges per agreement.
- Defendant had prior qualifying felonies such that the trial court imposed a Class X sentence under 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8) (statute requires defendant be over 21 for eligibility).
- Defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition (2012) raising ineffective assistance, facial/unconstitutional challenge to the enhanced-sentencing statute, and that his consecutive sentence was void; trial court dismissed it as frivolous and patently without merit.
- The trial court sent the prison warden a copy of the dismissal order noting the finding under 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) (prison-discovery/discipline provision referencing frivolous suits).
- On the State’s petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Supreme Court denied leave but issued supervisory direction to reconsider in light of Castleberry, Price, and Smith; on reconsideration this appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/forfeitability of Class X sentence under 5-5-3(c)(8) | State: sentence valid; defendant was 21 at plea/sentencing so statute applies | Douglas: sentence void or statute unconstitutional as applied because he was 20 at offense/indictment; alternatively unconstitutional as-applied for under-21 defendants | Forfeiture applies (Castleberry/Price/Thompson); on the merits Smith controls — Douglas was 21 at plea/sentencing so Class X treatment valid |
| Disclosure of dismissal order to prison warden and potential loss of good-conduct credit under 3-6-3(d) | State: court may inform DOC; DOC disciplinary process governs any credit revocation | Douglas: court erred by sending dismissal order to warden; first postconviction petition not a "lawsuit" under 3-6-3(d) | Appellate court declines to decide; issue is for DOC proceedings (if any) or separate action; potentially moot here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 43 N.E.3d 932 (Ill. 2015) (abolished the rule that nonconforming sentences are "void" and held such sentences are voidable and subject to forfeiture)
- People v. Thompson, 43 N.E.3d 984 (Ill. 2015) (judgments are void only for lack of jurisdiction or facially unconstitutional statutes; as-applied challenges forfeitable)
- People v. Hodges, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 2009) (standard for summary dismissal of pro se postconviction petitions: petition must have no arguable basis in law or fact to be dismissed)