People v. Williams
178 N.E.3d 748
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- On June 7, 2018 defendant De’Andre Williams assaulted an undercover officer during what the officer thought was a drug buy; the officer’s $20 bill was taken and recovered in the alley.
- A jury convicted Williams of robbery and aggravated battery; at sentencing the State sought mandatory Class X treatment under 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95(b) based on two prior felonies (robbery, 2014; burglary, 2013).
- The 2013 burglary conviction occurred when Williams was 17 and was adjudicated in criminal court at the time.
- Defendant argued the 2013 offense should not qualify as a predicate under section 5-4.5-95(b) because, as of the date of the instant offense (June 7, 2018), legislative amendments would have made that offense subject to juvenile delinquency jurisdiction.
- The trial court sentenced Williams to nine years’ imprisonment as a Class X offender; Williams appealed and raised the eligibility of the 2013 conviction as a predicate (for plain-error review).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams’s 2013 burglary conviction (committed at age 17) qualifies as a predicate "offense now classified as a Class 2 or greater" under 5-4.5-95(b) | The State: prior criminal convictions are convictions regardless of juvenile status; burglary is currently a Class 2+ felony and thus qualifies. | Williams: because of post‑conviction amendments to the Juvenile Court Act, the 2013 offense would have been handled as a juvenile adjudication in 2018 and therefore is not a qualifying “offense now” classified as a Class 2+ felony. | Court: Agrees with defendant—under the statute’s focus on the offense as "now classified," a prior juvenile adjudication that would have been in juvenile court as of the current offense date does not qualify for Class X predicate. |
| Remedy if prior burglary does not qualify: affirm Class X or remand for resentencing as Class 2 | State: even if burglary cannot be used, Williams is still eligible for an extended term Class 2 sentence based on the 2014 robbery, so the nine‑year term should stand. | Williams: seeks vacatur of Class X sentence and resentencing under the correct statutory range. | Court: Vacates the Class X sentence and remands for resentencing as a Class 2 offender (extended term options remain for the trial court). |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzsimmons v. Norgle, 104 Ill. 2d 369 (Ill. 1984) (criminal conviction entered in juvenile criminal court was treated as a conviction under statutes referencing prior convictions)
- People v. Taylor, 221 Ill. 2d 157 (Ill. 2006) (juvenile adjudications do not constitute convictions absent a statute defining them as such)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (plain‑error review framework described)
- People v. Hicks, 181 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 1998) (an unauthorized sentence can constitute second‑prong plain error affecting substantial rights)
- People v. Banks, 212 Ill. App. 3d 105 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (pre‑amendment treatment: prior juvenile convictions counted toward habitual criminal status)
- People v. Bryant, 278 Ill. App. 3d 578 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (similar holding that statutes referencing "any convictions" included convictions entered while defendant was a minor)