People v. Rizzo
2016 IL 118599
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Vincent Rizzo was charged with aggravated speeding (driving 40+ mph over limit, here alleged 100 mph in a 55 zone) and improper lane usage; he moved to dismiss the aggravated-speeding count on constitutional grounds.
- Rizzo argued the 2012 version of 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(p) (which barred court supervision for section 11-601.5 violations) violated the Illinois Constitution’s proportionate penalties clause and due process; he also suggested equal protection.
- The circuit court found the statutory prohibition on supervision unconstitutional (citing proportionate penalties, and in Rule 18 findings also due process and equal protection) and struck the provision insofar as it denied supervision to first offenders.
- The State appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court under Rule 603; the State argued supervision is not a constitutionally significant penalty, the cross-comparison approach relied on by the circuit court is no longer good law, and there was no factual record to support an as-applied ruling.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s as-applied finding was unsupported because there was no evidentiary record, (2) the facial invalidation failed because the challenger did not meet the heavy burden for facial attacks, (3) the cross-comparison analysis and consideration of collateral consequences were improper, and (4) the statute survived rational-basis due process review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Rizzo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(p) (2012) is facially and/or as-applied unconstitutional under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause | The statute is constitutional; supervisory ineligibility is not a constitutionally significant penalty and the legislature may set penalties | Denial of supervision for aggravated speeding is cruel and degrading or disproportionate (compared to reckless driving and other offenses); statute violates article I, §11 | Reversed. Facial challenge fails; as-applied ruling premature due to no evidentiary record; prohibition on supervision not cruel/degrading here and not violative of §11 |
| Whether aggravated speeding and reckless driving have identical elements for an "identical elements" proportionate-penalties challenge | Elements differ; legislature permissibly distinguished offenses | Elements are identical or sufficiently similar to show disproportionate treatment | Held identical-elements test not met; elements are different (reckless driving requires willful and wanton mental state; aggravated speeding does not) |
| Whether the cross-comparison of penalties for different offenses (and collateral consequences) can support a §11 "cruel or degrading" claim | Cross-comparisons and collateral consequences are not decisive; supervision may be part of penalty analysis but legislature’s choices deserve deference | Comparing aggravated speeding to lesser-offense penalties and collateral consequences shows disproportionality | Rejected: cross-comparison with different-element offenses is improper post-Sharpe; collateral consequences (non‑governmental) are not part of the criminal penalty for §11 analysis |
| Whether the statute violates due process (rational-basis review) | The statutory prohibition reasonably furthers public safety and deterrence; legislature may criminalize excessive speed and limit dispositional options | Denying supervision removes judicial discretion to consider mitigating circumstances and thus may be arbitrary or unrelated to legitimate goals | Rejected: statute bears a rational relationship to public safety/deterrence; legislature need not supply a statement of purpose; rational-basis review upheld statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (Ill. 2005) (abolished problematic cross-comparison proportionate-penalties analysis and emphasized deference to legislative sentencing choices)
- People v. Miller, 202 Ill. 2d 328 (Ill. 2002) (describes evolving community standards for what constitutes "cruel or degrading" punishment and role of judicial review)
- People v. Breen, 62 Ill. 2d 323 (Ill. 1975) (explains supervision is a statutorily authorized disposition and can involve penal consequences)
- People v. Davis, 177 Ill. 2d 495 (Ill. 1997) (earlier decision that employed cross-comparison analysis, later disapproved by Sharpe)