THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. DOUGLAS COLEMAN, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 76833, 76880 cons.
Supreme Court of Illinois
June 22, 1995
166 Ill. 2d 247
These are not profound insights. They are simple truisms which the General Assembly was trying to express when it established the guidelines for the disposition of marital property under
JUSTICE MCMORROW joins in this dissent.
Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Michael J. Waller, State‘s Attorney, of Waukegan (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris and Diane L. Campbell, of the Office of the State‘s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Mt. Vernon, of counsel), for the People.
Daniel M. Kirwan, Dеputy Defender, and Edwin J. Anderson, Assistant Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee and cross-appellant, and Douglas Coleman, of Pontiac, appellee and cross-appellant pro se.
Defendant, Douglas Coleman, pleaded guilty in the circuit court of Lake County to one count of first degree murder and to three counts of armed robbery. He was
Four indictments were filed against the defendant. In cause No. 91-CF-2542, defеndant and two codefendants, David Bryant and Tyrone Davidson, were charged in a nine-count indictment with various offenses, including first degree murder and aggravated arson. These charges arose from their participation in the fire bombing of the Lewis home in Waukegan on the night of December 7, 1991. Shaquita Lewis, a 17-year-old girl, died in this fire. Her father and two sisters escaped the blaze through a second-story window, suffering injuries in their flight. The house was destroyed. According to the record, codefendant Bryant believed that Steven Lewis, Shaquita‘s brother, had shot at Bryant on the evening of December 7, 1991, and the fire bombing was in retaliation for that alleged act. Defendant‘s and codefendants’ cases were severed during pretrial proceedings for the purposes of further prosecution.
In three separate and unrelated indictments (cause Nos. 91-CF-2543, 91-CF-2544, 91-CF-2662), defendant was also charged with committing the offense of armed robbery against three separate cab drivers at different locations in November and December 1991.
At a consolidated plea hearing on March 16, 1992,
The State provided a factual basis for the guilty pleas. The State would have offered evidence to establish that defendant participated in the fire bombing, and that Shaquita Lewis died from smoke inhalation as a result of the fire. The only disputed issue was whether defendant actually threw the Molotov cocktail that started the fire. Further, the State would have called the three armed robbery victims to testify, and would have introduced defendant‘s admission to Waukegan police that he committed those robberies. The judge accepted defendant‘s guilty pleas. The cases then proceeded to a sentencing hearing.
A presentence investigation report was filed on April 8, 1992. According to this report, defendant‘s criminal history spanned 19 years. He was on parole when he committed the instant offenses, and reported a 10-year history of substance abuse.
The trial judge imposed an extended term of 85 years in prison for murder and an extended term of 50 years in prison for each of the three armed robberies. The sentences for armed robbery were to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the sentence for murder. After the denial of his motion to reconsider the sentences, defendant appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the imposition of consecutive sentences, but reduced the extended terms for the armed robberies from 50 to 30 years, the maximum authorized nonextended term. Citing People v. Jordan (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 192, which involved separate charges arising from the same course of conduct, the appellate court held that an extended term was only allowed “for the class of the most serious offense of which the offender was convicted.” (255 Ill. App. 3d at 574.) It declined to follow People v. Lewis (1992), 228 Ill. App. 3d 654, which affirmed the imposition of an extended term for the lesser of two offenses arising from a course of conduct unrelated to the greater offense even though thе sentences were imposed during a single sentencing hearing. (255 Ill. App. 3d at 575-76.) It also distinguished People v. Whitson (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 999, which allowed the imposition of an extended term for a lesser offense arising from conduct unrelated to the greater offense, on the ground that, although the sentencing hearings were consolidated, the defendant had been prosecuted in separate trials. (255 Ill. App. 3d at 574-75.) In support of its decision to reduce the sentences, the appellate court cited People v. Stevenson (1990), 204 Ill. App. 3d 342, People v. Bivens (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 222, and People v. Akins (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 1009. The appellate court believed the holding in Jordan was applied in each of those cases to invalidate extended terms for lesser offеnses arising from courses of conduct unrelated to the greater offenses. 255 Ill. App. 3d at 575-76.
The State argues here that the trial court properly imposed extended terms for each of the three armed robbery offenses that arose from separate and unrelated courses of conduct, and that the sentences imposed were proper. Defendant argues that he should not have been sentenced to extended terms for the armed robbery offenses, and that the consecutive sentences were excеssive, particularly where he was guilty of murder by accountability only.
We first address whether extended terms may be imposed for the armed robbery offenses that arose from courses of conduct unrelated to each other and the murder offense, but were joined with the murder case at a plea and sentencing hearing. The question presented is one of statutory construction. In construing a statute, we must ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. (People v. Bole (1993), 155 Ill. 2d 188, 195.) We must also assume that the legislature did not intend to produce absurd results. (Bole, 155 Ill. 2d at 195.) We begin our inquiry with the language of the statute. Bole, 155 Ill. 2d at 195.
“A judgе shall not sentence an offender to a term of imprisonment in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by
Section 5-8-1 for the class of the most serious offense of which the offender was convicted unless the factors in aggravation set forth in paragraph (b) ofSection 5-5-3.2 were found to be present.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-2(a) .)
Because the potential penalty for first degree murder is greater than that for armed robbery, however, defendant maintains that the extended terms imposed for the armed robbery convictions were improper. Like the appellate court, defendant relies upon People v. Jordan (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 192.
In Jordan, this court construed
In response, the State argues that Jordan is not applicable because each case in Jordan involved lesser offenses arising from the same course of conduct as the greater offenses. In contrast, the four instant cases, while consolidated, involved separately charged offenses arising from unrelated courses of conduct.
The appellate cоurt has reached conflicting results on the issue raised by the State. See People v. Britt (4th Dist. 1994), 265 Ill. App. 3d 129 (court held extended terms may be imposed for lesser offenses that were un-
The defendant points out that the court in Jordan did not expressly exclude from its holding the question of separate and unrelated offenses joined at a single plea and sentencing hearing. The court in Jordan also did not expressly exclude from its holding the question of unrelated offenses prosecuted separately. The parties do not dispute, however, that extended terms on differing class offenses in the latter situation would be proper. Otherwise, a repeat offender would be eligible for an extended term only once throughout what might be an offender‘s criminal career. We do not believe that the legislature intended a result that would fail to discourage recidivism. Further, the statute does not say that the judge shall impose extended terms only for the class of the most serious offense of which the offender was ever convicted.
The question here then becomes whether the consolidation of unrelated charges at a plea and sentencing hearing restricts the sentencing alternatives that would otherwise be available in the case of a defendant
We agree with the State. We view the consolidation as a joining of unrelated prosecutions rather than as a fusion of cases into a single prosecution. Thus, the statutory directive that an extended term may only be imposed “for the class of the most serious offense of which the offender was convicted” does not prohibit the imposition of extended terms in these cases. See Lewis, 228 Ill. App. 3d at 659; Whitson, 127 Ill. App. 3d at 1006.
If consolidation were to modify the sentencing options, a defendant would become immune from extended terms for less serious, unrelated criminal acts in the event the less serious cases were joined with a separate case or cases involving a greater class felony. To pierce this immunity, the State would have to pursue separate plea and sentencing proceedings in unrelated cases to preserve the option of extended terms. The State‘s election for separate proceedings would result in needless repetition and a waste of the State‘s, the defendant‘s, and the court‘s resources. We agree with the State that the legislature did not intend to produce such an unusual result. Bole, 155 Ill. 2d at 195.
Defendant argues, however, that if extended terms are permitted, defendants may refuse to plead guilty
Finally, defendant relies upon two cases, also cited by the appellate court below, for the argument that courts, consistent with Jordan, have refused to sentence a defendant to extended terms for unrelated, less serious offenses. (See People v. Stevenson (1990), 204 Ill. App. 3d 342; People v. Bivens (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 222.) In both cases, however, the greater and lesser offenses were not unrelated: they аrose from the same course of conduct. In Stevenson, the charges arose from the defendant‘s robbing and beating of one victim. In Bivens, the charges arose from the defendant‘s prison escape. Thus, neither case supports defendant here.
We interpret
Next, defendant argues that his consecutive sentences were excessive, particularly where he was guilty of murder by accountability only. Consecutive sentences
The sentences imposed here were within statutory limits. The sentencing judge imposed extended terms within the potential ranges for murder and armed robbery. (
In aggravation, the sentencing judge considered matters set forth in the presentence investigation report. Defendant had a history of juvenile delinquency, numerous misdemeanor and traffic offenses, and seven felony convictions between 1978 and 1990. He committed the instant offenses while on parole. He reported a 10-year history of substance abuse, and indicated that the present armed robberies were committеd to fund his cocaine habit. He had not participated in any substance abuse counseling despite a parole board‘s recommendation to do so in 1981.
At the sentencing hearing, the State tendered five victim impact statements in aggravation. It then introduced testimony of several Waukegan police detectives to corroborate its theory that defendant threw the
The State also introduced statements made by Clarence Evans while he was in custody for possession of a controlled substance, and statements made by codefendant Davidson. According to Evans, on the night of the fire, defendant and codefendants left Evans’ home in defendant‘s van after Bryant complained that someone had shot at him. When they returned, Evans asked defendаnt what had happened. Defendant answered, “A fire, it‘s been done!” Evans asked, “You did it just now?” Defendant replied, “Yeah, a Molotov cocktail.” Evans then received cocaine from Bryant to give to defendant. Evans stated, “From the payment to Doug [defendant] it made me believe he had started the fire.” Codefendant Davidson stated that he believed defendant threw the Molotov cocktail.
Defendant testified at the sentencing hearing. He admitted that he drove the codefendants to pick up supplies used in making the bomb and then drove them to the Lewis neighborhood on the night of the fire. Defendant maintained that Bryant threw the bomb. He said
In mitigation, defendant called seven witnesses. Four were friends who described defendant as helpful and respectful. The other three were correctional officers where defendant was jailed, who testified that defendant followed regulations. The presentence investigation, however, revealed that defendant had received three disciplinary reports during his last prison term. Defendant also offerеd to testify against the codefendants. In his statement in allocution, defendant apologized for Shaquita Lewis’ death and expressed sorrow for the Lewis family. He blamed his bad acts on his drug addiction. He stated that he would like to rejoin the community to discourage others from following the wrong path.
The sentencing judge was convinced that defendant had knowledge of and was accountable for the fire bombing. The judge found no applicable mitigating factors except possibly that defendant had spared the Lewis family from the оrdeal of a trial by pleading guilty. The judge observed that defendant‘s positive contribution to society was minimal. At a hearing on defendant‘s motion to reconsider sentence, the judge further commented that defendant‘s potential for rehabilitation was “next to nil.”
Regarding consecutive sentences, the sentencing judge stated that “the defendant‘s crimes and propensity to commit them were *** increasingly dangerous to honest, innocent and law abiding citizens.” The judge also believed defendant would likely commit future crimes if at liberty. It is clear that the judge thought consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public. (See People v. Pittman (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 169, 178 (court held sentencing court not required to state it is of opinion that consecutive term is necessary to protect public so long as
Defendant has not challenged the factors relied upon by the judge in imposing the extended terms, and we believe those factors were proper. See
Defendant argues that the sentences imposed fail to reflect his potential for rehabilitation. (
Defendant points to People v. O‘Neal (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 291, in which a majority of this court affirmed the modification of the defendant‘s 40-year murder sentence to run concurrently, instead of consecutively, with his 20-year sentence for rape and 15-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping. Defendant also cites People v. Neither (1992), 230 Ill. App. 3d 546, in which the appellate court reduced and modified consecutive sentences to run concurrently where the dеfendants committed a series of robberies and aggravated batteries against four elderly victims. We find both cases are distinguishable from the instant cases based on the seriousness of the crimes, and the character and criminal history of the defendants.
The sentencing judge adequately considered the
For the reasons stated, we affirm in part the judgment of the appellate court, but reverse that part of the judgment which reduced the extended terms for the armed robbery conviсtions, and we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part; circuit court affirmed.
JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I would affirm the appellate court‘s judgment in full.
The majority reaches a contrary result by arguing that
To the extent that there is any ambiguity in the law, that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant, not the State. A criminal or penal statute is to be strictly construed in favor of an accused, and nothing is to be taken by intendment or implication against him beyond the literal meaning of the statute. If a statute creating or increasing a penalty or punishment сan be construed in more than one way, the construction that operates in favor of the accused is the one that must be adopted. People ex rel. Gibson v. Cannon (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 366, 370-71.
While I can sympathize with my colleagues’ desire to see this particular defendant remain in jail for as long as possible, that is no justification for ignoring these settled and accepted principles of law. Contrary to the majority‘s view, giving the statute its plain meaning would not produce unusual results. Rather, it would provide the State with an additional mechanism to induce defendants to negotiate pleas, in one consolidated proceeding, for every crime they had committed until that time. Although such an inducement was not necessary here, no one can seriously doubt that the possibility of avoiding extended terms for lesser offenses will make guilty pleas a more attractive option for defendants who have committed multiple offenses. If defendants can limit the amount of jail time they face, they are much more likely to plead guilty to everything at once.
Under the majority‘s construction, that incentive has nоw been eliminated. In future cases, defendants represented by competent counsel will have no sound