People v. Larue
2014 IL App (4th) 120595
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Terrell T. Larue was arrested Dec. 12, 2011 and originally charged Dec. 13, 2011 with attempted armed robbery, residential burglary, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW). He remained in custody throughout.
- Multiple continuances were granted; trial was ultimately set for April 30, 2012. On April 27, 2012 (three days before trial), the State filed an additional charge: unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF).
- At trial the State dismissed attempt and AUUW and proceeded on residential burglary and UPWF; a jury convicted on both counts.
- The court sentenced Larue to consecutive terms: 15 years for residential burglary and 10 years for UPWF; the clerk then assessed numerous fines and fees.
- On appeal Larue challenged (1) a speedy-trial violation from the late UPWF charge, (2) the 10-year UPWF sentence under the proportionate-penalties clause, (3) due process and equal protection aspects of that sentence, and (4) several fines/duplicate fees imposed by the clerk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Speedy-trial: Was adding UPWF after 120 days a statutory speedy-trial violation? | The State: UPWF was a lesser-included offense of the earlier AUUW; elements were included in the original charge so defendant had notice and no violation occurred. | Larue: UPWF was added after the 120-day term and carried a greater maximum penalty; adding it late deprived him of statutory speedy-trial protections. | No speedy-trial violation. UPWF is included in AUUW (all UPWF elements were in the original charge), so delays on the original counts tolled the new count; counsel not ineffective for not objecting. |
| 2) Proportionate-penalties clause: Does UPWF’s harsher maximum sentence than AUUW violate Ill. Const. art. I, §11? | The State: Offenses have different elements (AUUW requires uncased/loaded/immediately accessible), so penalties may differ. | Larue: UPWF (Class 3, up to 10 years) carries a harsher maximum than AUUW (Class 2, max 7 years here) despite being a lesser-included offense, violating the clause. | Rejected. Because AUUW and UPWF have different elements, the proportionate-penalties clause is not violated. |
| 3) Due process / equal protection: Is the 10-year UPWF sentence unconstitutional on these grounds? | The State: Legislature has broad discretion in setting penalties; no showing legislature’s intent or that sentencing is irrational or arbitrary. | Larue: Penal disparity between UPWF and AUUW is arbitrary and violates due process and equal protection. | Rejected. No showing that the penalty contravenes legislative intent (Bradley standard) or that similarly situated classes exist; rational-basis review satisfied. |
| 4) Fines & duplicate fees: Were fines/fees improperly imposed by the clerk and/or duplicated? | The State (conceded in part): Fines must be imposed judicially; duplicates should be eliminated; some fees may be allowed per conviction. | Larue: Clerk imposed void fines (clerical lack of authority) and multiple duplicate fees. | Vacated in part. Clerk-imposed fines (including juvenile-expungement and arrestee medical assessments) are void and vacated. Duplicate fees vacated for document storage, automation, circuit clerk, and court security fees; court finance and State’s Attorney fees properly charged per conviction. Trial court to judicially impose mandatory fines on remand and apply per diem credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Phipps, 238 Ill. 2d 54 (Illinois 2010) (focus on whether original indictment gave adequate notice to prepare defense to subsequent charge)
- People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100 (Illinois 2013) (compulsory-joinder principles and relation to speedy-trial limits)
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (Illinois 2005) (proportionate-penalties analysis; abandon cross-comparison approach)
- People v. Bradley, 79 Ill. 2d 410 (Illinois 1980) (due process challenge to disparate penalties requires showing conflict with legislative intent)
- People v. Mays, 2012 IL App (4th) 090840 (Ill. App. 2012) (speedy-trial notice inquiry: could defendant prepare a defense to added charge)