People v. Larue
10 N.E.3d 959
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Defendant Terrell T. Larue was charged in December 2011 with attempt (armed robbery), residential burglary, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW); a subsequent UPWF charge was added in April 2012, after arrest.
- Trial began April 30, 2012; State dismissed counts I and III, and jurors found Larue guilty of UPWF and residential burglary.
- Sentencing in June 2012 imposed consecutive 10-year UPWF and 15-year burglary terms, plus various fines and fees.
- Larue appealed arguing (a) UPWF was improperly charged after the 120-day speedy-trial period on the original charges; (b) UPWF sentence violated the proportionate-penalties clause; (c) UPWF sentence violated due process and equal protection; (d) circuit clerk fines and duplicate fees were void.
- The appellate court upheld part of the judgment, vacated several fines/fees imposed by the clerk, and remanded for judicial imposition of fines and to address the fees, while affirming the resulting conviction and sentence in part.
- The court discussed Aguilar (as modified on rehearing) and concluded Aguilar did not affect Larue’s arguments; the decision remands for appropriate clerical action and reimposition of fines as proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the UPWF charge violate the speedy-trial statute? | Larue; UPWF added after 120 days; argues speedy-trial violation. | Larue; rights to speedy trial were violated by new charge. | No speedy-trial violation; included offense doctrine applicable; UPWF not new and additional. |
| Does the UPWF sentence violate the proportionate-penalties clause? | Larue; UPWF harsher than AUUW despite lesser/included status. | State; penalties may differ; not a proportionality violation. | UPWF sentence does not violate the proportionate-penalties clause. |
| Does the UPWF sentence violate due process or equal protection? | Larue; longer sentence for lesser-included offense violates due process and equal protection. | Penalty rationally related to protecting public safety; no due process/equal protection violation. | No due process or equal protection violation. |
| Are the circuit clerk's fines and duplicate fees void and must be vacated? | Clerk imposed fines/fees without authority; some duplicates improper. | N/A for this issue. | Vacate void fines; address duplicate fees; remand for proper imposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Phipps, 238 Ill. 2d 54 (2010) (speedy-trial notice for subsequent charges; included-offense concept)
- People v. Williams, 94 Ill. App. 3d 241 (1981) (Williams rule; included offenses and pretrial delays)
- People v. Callahan, 334 Ill. App. 3d 636 (2002) (included offenses treated under compulsory joinder)
- People v. Dressler, 317 Ill. App. 3d 379 (2000) (included offense notice; continuances)
- People v. Arndt, 50 Ill. 2d 390 (1972) (notice and sufficiency of charges; included offenses)
- People v. Dunn, 365 Ill. App. 3d 292 (2006) (proportionate penalties; identical elements analysis)
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005) (proportionate-penalties framework)
- Bradley, 79 Ill. 2d 410 (1980) (due process in sentencing disparity among offenses)
- Pohl, 2012 IL App (2d) 100629 (2012) (duplicate/ multiple fees under Clerks Act; language-based analysis)
- Martino, 2012 IL App (2d) 101244 (2012) (per-conviction State's Attorney fees; duplicate fees)