Title: People v. Blanco

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

Docket No. 91085-Agenda 15-September 2001.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. 
 								ALVARO BLANCO, Appellee.
Opinion filed April 18, 2002.


	JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:
	The sole issue in this case is whether the 15-year sentencing
enhancement for armed robbery while in possession of a firearm
(720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2), (b) (West 2000)) is valid and enforceable.
We hold that it is not.

BACKGROUND
	This is a companion case to People v. Garcia, No. 90958
(April 18, 2002). Like Garcia, this defendant, Alvaro Blanco, was
charged with several offenses, including armed robbery while in
possession of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2000)).
Although armed robbery is classified generally as a Class X
felony, subsection (b) of the armed robbery statute provides that,
for armed robberies while in possession of a firearm, "15 years
shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court."
720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2000). Prior to trial, defendant filed a
motion arguing that the 15-year sentencing enhancement violates
the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill.
Const. 1970, art. I, §11). The circuit court of Kane County agreed
with defendant's argument and invalidated the 15-year
enhancement. The State immediately appealed under Supreme
Court Rule 604(a)(1) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)), construing the trial
court's order as an effective dismissal of the portion of the
indictment charging defendant with armed robbery while in
possession of a firearm. Because the trial court's ruling invalidates
a statute of this state, the appeal was taken directly to this court.
134 Ill. 2d R. 603.

ANALYSIS
	A statute is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging
the statute bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. In re
K.C., 186 Ill. 2d 542, 550 (1999). This court has a duty to construe
a statute in a manner that upholds its validity and constitutionality
if it reasonably can be done. People v. Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d 413,
418 (2000). Whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law
that we review de novo. Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d  at 418.
	This appeal is controlled by our decision People v. Walden,
No. 90976 (April 18, 2002). In Walden, this court concluded that
the 15-year sentencing enhancement for armed robbery while in
possession of a firearm violates the proportionate penalties clause
of the Illinois Constitution and therefore is unenforceable. Walden,
slip op. at 5. Given the identity of issue between this appeal and
Walden, we hold that the trial court's order invalidating the 15-year enhancement in this case was proper.

CONCLUSION
	The judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is affirmed,
and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Affirmed and remanded.
	CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, specially concurring:
	Defendant, Alvaro Blanco, is one of Saul Garcia's
codefendants in the criminal proceedings arising out of the
February 1, 2000, attack on and robbery of Gwen Flores. See
People v. Garcia, No. 90958 (April 18, 2002). As was the case
with Garcia, Blanco was charged by information with armed
robbery in violation of section 18-2(a) of the Criminal Code of
1961 (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a) (West 2000)) and with three other
offenses.
	Prior to trial, Blanco's attorney filed a motion seeking to have
the armed robbery statute declared unconstitutional. Although his
motion cited subsection (a) of the statute, which sets forth the
substantive elements of the offense, Blanco's challenge was
actually directed solely against subsection (b)  (720 ILCS
5/18-2(b) (West 2000)), which contains the law's penalty
provisions. 
	Blanco's motion was argued in a consolidated hearing
together with similar motions filed by Garcia and by a third
defendant, Pashalis Mitridis. Following that hearing, the circuit
court entered an order identical to the one it issued in Garcia's
case, ruling that subsection (b) violates the proportionate penalties
clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §11). As
in Garcia's case, the State then appealed under Rule 604(a)(1)
(188 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)) on the theory that the substantive effect
of the trial court's ruling was to dismiss the armed robbery charge.
Because the court's ruling involved a declaration that a portion of
the armed robbery statute was unconstitutional, the appeal was
taken directly to our court. 134 Ill. 2d R. 603.
	The State's appeal in this case suffers from the same
jurisdictional impediment present in Garcia's case. People v.
Garcia, No. 90958 (April 18, 2002) (Harrison, C.J., specially
concurring). In addition, as in Garcia's case, all charges against
Blanco remain pending, including the armed robbery charge, and
he has yet to stand trial. His challenge to the sentencing provisions
of the armed robbery statute is therefore premature, and his motion
to have those provisions declared unconstitutional should have
been denied by the circuit court.  Nevertheless, for the reasons set
forth in my special concurrence in People v. Garcia, No. 90958
(April 18, 2002),  the armed robbery charges against Blanco are no
longer viable.  In the wake of this court's rulings in People v.
Walden, No. 90976 (April 18, 2002), and People v. Devenny, No.
91291 (April 18, 2002), and in the exercise of this court's
supervisory authority, the matter should therefore be remanded to
the circuit court with directions that the portion of the information
charging Blanco with armed robbery be dismissed.
 
	JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this special concurrence.