Title: People v. Terry

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

People v. Terry, No. 84156 (6/18/98) 
 
              Docket No. 84156--Agenda 10--March 1998. 
       THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. MELKY 
                         TERRY, Appellant. 
                    Opinion filed June 18, 1998. 
 
          JUSTICE BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court: 
          Following a 1987 jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, 
       defendant Melky Terry was convicted of one count of first degree murder and 
       one count of voluntary manslaughter, arising out of the 1985 deaths of Grace 
       and John Marcatante. Defendant was sentenced to natural life imprisonment 
       on the murder conviction, and was given an extended-term sentence of 30 
       years' imprisonment on the voluntary manslaughter conviction. Defendant's 
       convictions and sentences were affirmed by the appellate court on direct 
       appeal. No. 1--87--1226 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). 
       This court denied defendant's petition for leave to appeal. 
          In October 1993, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction 
       relief in the circuit court. The circuit court appointed a public defender to 
       represent defendant. The State moved to dismiss the post-conviction petition 
       on the ground that it was not timely filed. The circuit court granted the State's 
       motion. Defendant's motion for reconsideration was denied. 
          On appeal to the appellate court, defendant argued that the circuit court 
       erred in dismissing his post-conviction petition on timeliness grounds because 
       his post-conviction counsel failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 651(c) 
       (134 Ill. 2d R. 651(c)). The appellate court rejected defendant's argument that 
       Rule 651(c) required a remand in this case. Defendant also contended on 
       appeal that his extended-term sentence for voluntary manslaughter was void 
       because it violated section 5--8--2 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. 
       Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005--8--2(a)). The appellate court did not 
       address this argument because it determined that, even if the sentence violated 
       section 5--8--2, the sentence was merely voidable, not void, and was therefore 
       not subject to attack in this collateral proceeding. In so holding, the appellate 
       court declined to follow this court's decision in People v. Arna,  168 Ill. 2d 107  (1995). 
          We accepted defendant's petition for leave to appeal. 166 Ill. 2d R. 
       315. In this court, the parties have addressed only the issue of whether 
       defendant's extended-term sentence for voluntary manslaughter was authorized 
       by section 5--8--2. No argument is made regarding the timeliness of 
       defendant's post-conviction petition and we therefore do not address that issue. 
 
                           ANALYSIS 
          Defendant argues that his extended-term sentence for voluntary 
       manslaughter is void because it violates section 5--8--2 of the Unified Code 
       of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005--8--2(a), now 730 ILCS 
       5/5--8--2(a) (West 1996)). Section 5--8--1 of the Code of Corrections sets forth 
       the authorized sentences of imprisonment for felony offenses. Ill. Rev. Stat. 
       1985, ch. 38, par. 1005--8--1, now 730 ILCS 5/5--8--1 (West 1996). Section 
       5--8--2 authorizes a trial court to impose an extended term of imprisonment 
       for a felony conviction where certain circumstances are present. At the time 
       defendant committed his offenses in this case, section 5--8--2(a) provided, in 
       pertinent part: 
               "A judge 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) of Section 5--5--3.2 were found to be present. Where the 
                 judge finds that such factors were present, he may sentence an offender 
                 to the following." (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 
                 1005--8--2(a). 
       In section 5--5--3.2(b), the Code lists a number of aggravating factors which 
       may be considered by a trial court as reasons to impose an extended-term 
       sentence under section 5--8--2. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005--5--3.2, 
       now 730 ILCS 5/5--5--3.2 (West 1996). 
          Defendant argues that section 5--8--2 did not authorize the trial court 
       to impose an extended-term sentence for his voluntary manslaughter 
       conviction. Defendant relies primarily on this court's holding in People v. 
       Jordan,  103 Ill. 2d 192  (1984). In Jordan, the defendant was convicted of 
       murder and kidnapping and sentenced to extended-term sentences of 
       imprisonment under section 5--8--2 for each offense. On appeal, the defendant 
       argued that the extended-term sentence for kidnapping, the less serious 
       offense, was improper because section 5--8--2 permitted an extended-term 
       sentence to be imposed only for the most serious class of offense of which the 
       offender was convicted. This court agreed with the defendant that the 
       extended-term sentence for kidnapping was not authorized by section 5--8--2. 
       The court held that, under the plain language of section 5--8--2, an extended- 
       term sentence may be imposed only for the most serious class of offense of 
       which the defendant was convicted. Jordan, 103 Ill. 2d  at 204-06. 
          In this case, defendant contends that Jordan requires vacatur of his 
       extended-term sentence for voluntary manslaughter because he was also 
       convicted of murder, a more serious class of offense. Defendant's contention 
       has been expressly rejected by this court. In People v. Young,  124 Ill. 2d 147 
       (1988), the defendant was convicted of murder and armed robbery and was 
       sentenced to natural life imprisonment for the murder and an extended 60-year 
       term of imprisonment for the armed robbery. Relying on Jordan, the defendant 
       in Young argued that the extended-term sentence for armed robbery violated 
       section 5--8--2 because it was not the most serious offense of which the 
       defendant was convicted. 
          The Young court held that the defendant's extended-term sentence for 
       armed robbery was proper under the statute. In so holding, the court relied on 
       its prior decision in People v. Neal,  111 Ill. 2d 180  (1985). In Neal, the court 
       upheld the imposition of an extended-term sentence for the defendant's armed 
       robbery conviction even though the defendant had also been convicted of 
       murder for which he had been given the death penalty. The Neal court 
       reasoned that section 5--8--2 applied to extend the "terms of imprisonment" 
       authorized by section 5--8--1. Section 5--8--2 therefore could not apply to 
       capital sentences and would not apply to the defendant's murder conviction in 
       that case. Consequently, the court determined, section 5--8--2 could be applied 
       to extend the defendant's sentence for the next most serious offense of which 
       he was convicted, armed robbery. The court held that section 5--8--2 allowed 
       the imposition of an extended-term sentence "for the class of the most serious 
       offense of which the defendant was convicted when defendant was sentenced 
       to a term of years." Neal, 111 Ill. 2d  at 204-05. 
          In Young, this court determined that the rationale of Neal was also 
       applicable where a defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 
       natural life imprisonment. The court concluded that, just as the extended-term 
       sentencing provisions of section 5--8--2 could not "extend" a death sentence, 
       those provisions also could not "extend" a sentence of natural life 
       imprisonment. The Young court focused on the fact that the extended-term 
       provisions of section 5--8--2 authorized imposition of a sentence "in excess of 
       the maximum sentence authorized by Section 5--8--1." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 
       38, par. 1005--8--2(a). Section 5--8--1(a)(1) set forth the noncapital sentencing 
       options for first degree murder. Under section 5--8--1(a)(1)(a), a defendant 
       convicted of murder could be sentenced to a fixed term of 20 to 40 (now 20 
       to 60) years' imprisonment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 1005--8-- 
       1(a)(1)(a). Under subsections (b) or (c) of that section, a defendant convicted 
       of murder could be sentenced to natural life imprisonment, a sentence which 
       precluded the possibility of parole. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, pars. 1005--8-- 
       1(1)(b), (1)(c). The court determined that, where a defendant is sentenced to 
       natural life imprisonment for murder under subsections (b) or (c), the 
       authorization in section 5--8--2 to impose an extended-term sentence "in 
       excess of the maximum sentence authorized by section 5--8--1" could not 
       apply because the authorized extended-term sentence for murder, 40 to 80 
       (now 60 to 100) years, was less severe than natural life imprisonment. Thus, 
       the court held, a sentence of natural life imprisonment could not be "extended" 
       pursuant to section 5--8--2. Rather, the extended-term provision could only 
       apply to a murder conviction for which the defendant was sentenced to a term 
       of years pursuant to section 5--8--1(a)(1)(a). Only when a defendant convicted 
       of murder is sentenced to a term of years could section 5--8--2 operate to 
       impose a sentence "in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by section 
       5--8--1." Accordingly, because the extended-term sentencing provisions could 
       not apply to the defendant's natural life sentence for murder, the extended- 
       term provisions could properly be applied to the next most serious offense of 
       which the defendant was convicted, armed robbery. Young, 124 Ill. 2d at 165- 
       66. 
          The State asserts that Young, having addressed the identical issue, is 
       dispositive of this appeal. Defendant contends, however, that both Young and 
       Neal were implicitly overruled by this court in People v. Henderson,  142 Ill. 2d 258  (1990). In Henderson, the defendant was convicted of murder, 
       aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping. He was 
       sentenced to death for the murder conviction and was also given an extended- 
       term sentence of 45 years' imprisonment for the aggravated criminal sexual 
       assault conviction. One of the issues raised by the defendant on his direct 
       appeal to this court was that this extended-term sentence was improper 
       because aggravated criminal sexual assault was not the most serious offense 
       of which he was convicted. The Henderson court agreed, finding that, because 
       murder was the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted, 
       the sentencing judge erred in imposing an extended-term sentence for 
       aggravated criminal sexual assault. Henderson, 142 Ill. 2d  at 333. Defendant 
       urges us to follow Henderson in this case and hold that his extended-term 
       sentence for voluntary manslaughter was not statutorily authorized. 
          We agree with the State that this issue was correctly decided in Young 
       and Neal. In both Young and Neal, the court extensively analyzed the issue of 
       whether an extended-term sentence was permissible for a less serious class of 
       offense when the defendant was also convicted of murder and sentenced to 
       death or natural life. In particular, in Young, the court conducted an extended 
       analysis of section 5--8--2 to conclude that it permitted an extended-term 
       sentence to be imposed where a defendant was also sentenced to natural life 
       for murder. In contrast, the decision in Henderson did not conduct any 
       analysis of this issue. Moreover, the Henderson decision did not cite to Young 
       or Neal and did not express an intent to overrule those decisions. Notably, 
       defendant here does not provide us with any argument as to why the 
       Henderson result is better reasoned than the result reached in Young and Neal. 
       We find that the holdings of Young and Neal on this issue represent the better 
       reasoned approach. These holdings make the logical distinction between a 
       sentence of a term of years for murder, which is subject to application of the 
       extended-term provisions of section 5--8--2, and a sentence of death or natural 
       life for murder, which are not subject to application of section 5--8--2. As 
       those decisions concluded, since a sentence of death or natural life cannot be 
       "extended" under section 5--8--2, the extended-term statute should be 
       interpreted as applicable to the next most serious offense of which the 
       defendant was convicted. We therefore continue to adhere to this court's 
       decisions on this issue in Young and Neal. We hold that section 5--8--2 
       authorizes a trial court to impose an extended-term sentence for voluntary 
       manslaughter where the defendant is also sentenced to natural life for murder. 
          In light of our holding that defendant's extended-term sentence for 
       voluntary manslaughter was statutorily authorized, we do not address whether, 
       under our decision in People v. Arna,  168 Ill. 2d 107  (1995), that sentence was 
       void or voidable. 
 
                          CONCLUSION 
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court affirming 
       the judgment of the circuit court dismissing defendant's post-conviction 
       petition is affirmed. 
 
       Appellate court judgment affirmed.