People v. Lesure
944 N.E.2d 780
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Lesure, age 15 at the offense, was charged with first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated batteries in a bench trial.
- He was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder and sentenced to 50 and 25 years, respectively, to be served consecutively.
- Lesure filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective counsel, improper waiver of jury trial, and actual innocence; the court conducted a third-stage evidentiary hearing on the innocence claim.
- Clark, a key eyewitness, recanted at the evidentiary hearing, claiming he lied under police pressure and that the mother assisted drafting his affidavit.
- The State presented officers asserting no coercion or improper influence on Clark, and a sister of the victim testified to harassment and intimidation of the family after trial.
- The trial court dismissed the petition; on appeal, the central issue is whether Lesure should have been sentenced as a juvenile under the Juvenile Court Act or as an adult under the Unified Code of Corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attempted murder sentence was void under 5-4(6) of the Juvenile Court Act. | Lesure contends the act requires juvenile sentencing, making the attempted murder sentence void. | The State argues the offense arose from the same incident as first degree murder and falls under 5-4(6)(c)(i), so adult sentencing was proper. | Sentence not void; sentencing aligned with 5-4(6)(c)(i) because both offenses arose from the same incident. |
| Whether the sentencing framework should apply juvenile sentencing for both offenses or unified code sentencing because of auto-transfer provisions. | Lesure suggests Juvenile Court Act should govern sentencing. | State argues the plain language of 5-4(6)(c)(i) controls since both charges are automatically transferable. | Paragraph (c)(i) governs; petitioner was properly sentenced under the Unified Code. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill.2d 107 (1995) (void sentencing orders corrected on appeal; statutory misalignment can render void judgments)
- People v. Jones, 213 Ill.2d 498 (2004) (new issues on appeal may be forfeited; not applicable when void-sentence argument exists)
- People v. Champ, 329 Ill.App.3d 127 (2002) (remanded for juvenile sentencing when the State failed to timely request adult sentencing)
- People v. Mathis, 357 Ill.App.3d 45 (2005) (remand for juvenile sentencing when the defendant pled to an automatically transferable offense without proper notice)
- People v. Jardon, 393 Ill.App.3d 725 (2009) (mandatory notice requirements for adult sentencing under 5-130(1)(c)(ii))
- People v. Santana, 388 Ill.App.3d 961 (2009) (discusses void judgments where jurisdiction or power to render sentence is lacking)
- People v. Rodriguez, 355 Ill.App.3d 290 (2005) (quoted on interpretation of statutory provisions governing juvenile sentencing)