People v. Markley
2013 IL App (3d) 120201
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Meagan M. Markley, 16, was charged Jan 7, 2011 with two counts of aggravated reckless driving in Fulton County, trial court denied transfer to juvenile court.
- Stipulated that on Apr 3, 2010 she drove 80–115 mph on a 55 mph road, crashing into a utility pole; two passengers died.
- Court found she operated in excess of 100 mph, constituting reckless driving; convicted on two counts.
- Sentencing started at 28 months, amended to 24 months in DOC; court weighed aggravation/mitigation factors.
- Concurrent jurisdiction statute 705 ILCS 405/5-125 allows prosecutors to file in adult court or juvenile court; case filed in adult court; transfer not warranted.
- Appeal raised four issues: jurisdiction/transfer, constitutionality of the statute, sufficiency of aggravated reckless driving conviction, and sentence scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should have been dismissed or transferred to juvenile court | State exercised discretion under concurrent jurisdiction to file in adult court | Markley should have been prosecuted in juvenile court | Prosecution in adult court proper; no mandatory transfer required |
| Constitutionality of the concurrent jurisdiction statute | Statute rationally relates to adult nature of offenses; does not violate due process or equal protection | Graham/Roper concerns apply; youth not considered | Statute constitutional; rational basis; Graham/Roper inapplicable |
| Conviction based on speed and surrounding circumstances | Speed plus circumstances show willful/disregard | Speed alone not sufficient | Conviction sustained; speed with road/ Surroundings supports recklessness |
| Sentence not an abuse of discretion | 24-month sentence within statutory range given the offense | Age and lack of prior history warrant lesser sentence | Not an abuse of discretion; sentence within range and justified by seriousness |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. City of Chicago, 104 Ill. App. 3d 55 (1982) (addressed juvenile prosecution under concurrent jurisdiction statute)
- Folkers v. City of Chicago, 112 Ill. App. 3d 1007 (1983) (clarified intent of concurrent jurisdiction statute)
- People v. J.S., 103 Ill. 2d 395 (1984) (held Kent does not apply to automatic transfer provisions; rational basis test used)
- City of Urbana v. Andrew N.B., 211 Ill. 2d 456 (2004) (concurrent jurisdiction generally does not violate due process/equal protection)
- People v. Peterson, 397 Ill. App. 3d 1048 (2010) (discusses prosecutors’ discretion to file charges in adult court)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (invalidates certain juvenile death penalties; cited to discuss due process in youth cases)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (establishes due process considerations for juvenile transfers; discretionary transfer analyzed)
- People v. Sweeney, 2012 IL App (3d) 100781 (2012) (reiterates standard for appellate review of sentencing within statutory range)