Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

People v. Beck, 2021 IL App (5th) 200252

Appellate Court 

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

JAMEL BECK, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. Fifth District

No. 5-20-0252

Rule 23 order filed

Motion to

publish allowed

Opinion filed

August 26, 2021

September 13, 2021

September 13, 2021

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, No. 87-CF-150; the 

Hon. John J. O’Gara, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Stephen C. Williams, of Kuehn, Beasley & Young, P.C., of Belleville, 

for appellant.

James A. Gomric, State’s Attorney, of Belleville (Patrick Delfino, 

Patrick D. Daly, and Sharon Shanahan, of State’s Attorneys Appellate 

Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
- 2 -

Panel JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Moore concurred in the judgment 

and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant appeals from the trial court’s imposition of 80 years’ imprisonment, provided 

on remand from this court. He contends a new parole statute (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115 (West 

2020)), which affords defendant an opportunity to obtain parole, and the day-for-day good 

conduct credit statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, ¶ 1003-6-3(a)(2)) should not be considered 

when determining whether his sentence constitutes a de facto life sentence that violates the 

eighth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. VIII). Defendant further argues the application of 

section 5-4.5-115 of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115 (West 2020)) to 

him violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10) 

and the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/4 (West 2020)).

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The facts of this case are more fully set forth in this court’s previous decisions, People v. 

Beck, 190 Ill. App. 3d 748 (1989); People v. Beck, 259 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (1993) (table) 

(unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23); People v. Beck, 339 Ill. App. 3d 

413 (2003); and People v. Beck, 348 Ill. App. 3d 1111 (2004) (table) (unpublished order under 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23). Because defendant’s appeal asserts a question of law in 

challenging his sentence imposed on remand, we provide only the facts necessary to this 

appeal. 

¶ 4 On June 10, 1987, defendant pled guilty to six counts of aggravated battery and six counts 

of armed violence for the stabbing or shooting of six children at their family home. Before 

defendant pled, the court admonished defendant that armed violence is a Class X felony with 

a possible penalty of not less than 6 years’ nor more than 30 years’ imprisonment plus 3 years’ 

mandatory supervised release, and the possible penalties for each aggravated battery charge 

were not less than 2 years’ nor more than 5 years’ imprisonment plus 1 year of mandatory 

supervised release. The court also averred that defendant would not be eligible for probation, 

periodic imprisonment, or conditional discharge, with respect to the armed violence charges. 

After a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced defendant to six consecutive terms of 20 years 

for the armed violence counts, or a total of 120 years’ imprisonment.1

¶ 5 Subsequently, defendant filed a successive postconviction petition, alleging his sentence 

violated Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327. The 

State agreed that Buffer’s holding—that a prison sentence of more than 40 years is a de facto

life sentence—read in conjunction with Graham’s holding—that the United States 

Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole—

1

The trial court initially declined to sentence defendant on the aggravated battery counts. However, 

this court vacated the aggravated battery convictions, as they were included offenses of the armed 

violence counts. People v. Beck, 190 Ill. App. 3d 748 (1989).
- 3 -

means a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense cannot be sentenced to more than 40 

years without the possibility of parole. Consequently, the State conceded that “under the 

current case law, the 120-year sentence appears to be unconstitutional” and that defendant was

entitled to resentencing. The State noted, however, that defendant may still be sentenced to a 

term of 120 years at resentencing because section 5-4.5-115 of the Unified Code of Corrections 

(“new parole statute”) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115 (West 2020)) provides defendant an opportunity 

for parole before a term of life imprisonment. The circuit court granted defendant’s petition, 

vacated his sentence, and set the case for resentencing.

¶ 6 Before the resentencing hearing, the parties filed memoranda addressing the maximum 

possible sentence for defendant. Defendant contended—under Graham and Buffer—the 

maximum sentence the court could impose was 40 years’ imprisonment. He explained that 

Graham barred imposing a life sentence without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders. 

The Illinois Supreme Court in Buffer determined that more than 40 years constituted a de facto

life sentence. Defendant argued that, under both the new parole statute and the day-for-day 

good conduct credit statute, any chance of obtaining release from prison is speculative. As 

such, those statutes should not be considered when determining whether his 80-year sentence 

constituted an unconstitutional de facto life sentence. Defendant further claimed the 

application of the new parole statute violated the ex post facto clause of the United States 

Constitution (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10) and the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/4 (West 2020)).

¶ 7 Regarding his ex post facto argument, defendant argued the State and the court cannot now 

rely on the new parole statute to “cure” the unconstitutionality of his prior sentence. He noted 

that the touchstone of an ex post facto analysis is “whether a given change in law presents a 

sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.” 

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 539 (2013) (citing 

California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 509 (1995)). Here, without 

the availability of the juvenile parole statute, defendant could be resentenced to no more than 

40 years under United States Supreme Court and Illinois precedent. Defendant analogized this 

case to Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981), where the Supreme Court determined Florida’s 

“gain time” credits altered the punitive consequences for prisoners and therefore violated the 

ex post facto clause. He claimed the new juvenile parole statute is designed to allow for the 

imposition of de facto life sentences that could not otherwise be imposed by affording the 

availability of parole, which violates the ex post facto clause. 

¶ 8 With respect to the Statute on Statutes, defendant argued that he has a right to be sentenced 

under either the law in effect at the time the offense was committed or that was in effect at the 

time of sentencing, and he chose to be sentenced without regard to the new parole statute. He 

contended that the new parole statute effectively repealed an “accrued right,” which triggers 

the Statute on Statutes’ application. According to defendant, when the Supreme Court decided 

Graham, he accrued a right to be sentenced within the bounds of the eighth amendment, and 

Buffer set that boundary at 40 years’ imprisonment. The new parole statute is therefore 

designed to alter his accrued right by enacting procedures designed to circumvent the United 

States and Illinois precedent. 

¶ 9 The State asserted that 120 years’ imprisonment was the maximum sentence. It argued that, 

while defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing, he could be resentenced to the 

originally imposed 120 years’ imprisonment—in compliance with Graham—based on the new 

parole statute, which provides the possibility of parole for defendants who committed crimes 
- 4 -

before they were 21 years old and are sentenced after June 1, 2019. It further argued that the 

Fifth Appellate District of Illinois has held that a defendant is “not entitled to an election of 

sentencing laws” where the law “did not lessen or increase [the] possible or actual 

punishment.” People v. Farmer, 176 Ill. App. 3d 436, 442 (1988). Therefore, the State claimed 

the new parole statute in no way alters the number of years defendant could statutorily be 

sentenced. The State also noted that the Fifth District stated, “the [Illinois] [S]upreme [C]ourt 

recognized ‘that the Parole Act had nothing to do with the sentence imposed by the court, that 

parole is a matter of clemency and grace and that it relates to prison government and 

discipline.’ ” Harris v. Irving, 90 Ill. App. 3d 56, 61 (1980) (quoting People ex rel. Kubala v. 

Kinney, 25 Ill. 2d 491, 493-94 (1962)). Accordingly, the State contended there was no statutory 

modification or repeal that would allow defendant to choose which statute applies.

¶ 10 At the sentencing hearing, the court found the new parole statute applied. Defendant was 

also eligible for day-for-day good conduct credit. After hearing arguments regarding the 

mitigating and aggravating factors, the court imposed a total of 80 years’ imprisonment on the 

six counts of armed violence.2

¶ 11 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, asserting the same arguments as he 

did at the sentencing hearing. On July 10, 2020, the court denied defendant’s motion. 

Defendant timely appealed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 Defendant’s contentions on appeal are the same as he alleged before the trial court. He 

argues that the new parole statute and day-for-day good conduct credit statute cannot be 

considered in determining whether defendant’s sentence was a de facto life sentence. 

Alternatively, if this court finds that—under normal circumstances—the new parole statute can 

be considered in assessing whether defendant’s sentence subjects him to a de facto life 

sentence, we should not find so in this case. Defendant further argues that application of the 

new parole statute to him violates the ex post facto clause and the Statute on Statutes. Because 

all the issues asserted on appeal present pure legal questions, our review is de novo. People v. 

Cotto, 2016 IL 119006, ¶ 24.

¶ 14 A. Relevant Constitutional Principles

¶ 15 The eighth amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const., amend. 

VIII. This prohibition encompasses disproportionate sentences. Graham, 560 U.S. at 59. Over 

the last 16 years, the United States Supreme Court has advised that there is a genuine risk of a 

disproportionate punishment when juveniles received the most serious punishments because 

they are constitutionally different than adults. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471-72 (2012). 

In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578-79 (2005), the Court held that the eighth amendment 

prohibited capital punishment for juveniles. In Miller, 567 U.S. at 489, the Court determined 

the eighth amendment prohibited mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles who 

committed homicides.

2

Defendant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment on counts I through III. The court imposed a 

10-year sentence on counts IV through VI. All sentences were to run consecutively, except count VI, 

which was to run concurrently with count V. 
- 5 -

¶ 16 Relevant to this case is the Court’s decision in Graham, 560 U.S. at 74, where it held that 

the eighth amendment prohibited life sentences without parole for juveniles who committed a 

nonhomicide offense. The Court explained that “life without parole is the second most severe 

penalty permitted by law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 69. While the offender is 

not executed, a life “sentence alters the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable.” Id. 

Such sentence allows the State to decide a juvenile is incorrigible from the outset and 

“improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity.” Id. at 

72-73.

¶ 17 The Court clarified that the eighth amendment does not guarantee the freedom of a juvenile 

convicted of a nonhomicide crime. Id. at 75. Rather, the State cannot determine—at the 

outset—that those offenders are irredeemable and must remain imprisoned for life. Id. The 

United States Constitution only requires nonhomicide juvenile offenders are provided “some 

meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” 

Id. Subsequently, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that life sentences include de facto

life sentences of imprisonment over 40 years. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 41.

¶ 18 Defendant contends the application of either the new parole statute or day-for-day good 

conduct credit statute does not render his sentence compliant with the eighth amendment under 

Graham and Buffer because the possibility of obtaining parole or good conduct credit is 

speculative. He also argues both statutes should not be considered in determining whether a 

sentence complies with the eighth amendment because they operate completely independent 

from any input or control from the courts. We disagree.

¶ 19 B. New Parole Statute

¶ 20 The new parole statute affords a person under 21 years old at the time of the commission 

of a nonhomicide offense—who was sentenced after June 1, 2019—eligibility for parole 

review before the Prisoner Review Board (Board) after serving 10 years or more of his or her 

sentence. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115(b) (West 2020). Such offender may begin the process by filing 

a petition with the Board three years prior to becoming eligible. Id. § 5-4.5-115(c). Within 30 

days of receipt of the petition, the Board shall set a date for the parole hearing three years from 

the receipt of the petition or notify the petitioner if the petition was insufficient including a 

basis for its determination. Id. If parole is denied, the Board must provide a written decision—

which states the rationale for denial including the primary factors considered—to petitioner 

and his or her counsel. Id. § 5-4.5-115(l). Petitioner is eligible for a second parole hearing five 

years after the written decision from the first hearing and is eligible for a third hearing five 

years after the written decision regarding the second hearing. Id. § 5-4.5-115(m)-(n).

¶ 21 Petitioners are entitled to be present at the hearing and hire counsel or be appointed counsel 

upon a finding of indigency. Id. § 5-4.5-115(e), (h). The Board must provide petitioner and his 

or her counsel with any written documents or material it will consider in making its 

determination, with certain exceptions. Id. § 5-4.5-115(f). In making its parole determination, 

the Board shall consider the nonexhaustive list of factors listed under section 1610.50(b) of 

Title 20 of the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1610.50(b) (1985)), as well as 

“the diminished culpability of youthful offenders, the hallmark features of youth, and any 

subsequent growth and maturity of the youthful offender during incarceration.” 730 ILCS 5/5-

4.5-115(j) (West 2020). 
- 6 -

¶ 22 While release is not promised, the opportunity for parole provides a meaningful 

opportunity for release. Graham expressly limited its holding to life sentences without parole. 

Graham, 560 U.S. at 74, 82. The Court emphasized that parole establishes a variation on 

imprisonment in that—with parole—a prisoner “ ‘could hardly ignore the possibility that he 

will not actually be imprisoned for the rest of his life.’ ” Id. at 70 (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 

445 U.S. 263, 280-81 (1980)). It further noted the penological goal that forms the basis of the 

parole systems is rehabilitation. Id. at 73. Defendant is not entitled to eventual release but only 

to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on his maturity and rehabilitation. Id. at 

75. The new parole statute affords defendant such opportunity by allowing defendant to request 

a parole hearing in which the Board must consider “the diminished culpability of youthful 

offenders, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and maturity of the 

youthful offender during incarceration.” 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115(j) (West 2020). 

¶ 23 Despite defendant’s contentions, Graham does not require the courts to hold the exclusive 

authority in ensuring defendants obtain a meaningful opportunity. The Court stated, “[i]t is for 

the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance.” Graham, 

560 U.S. at 75. Moreover, Graham repeatedly implied the requirement to provide “some 

meaningful opportunity to obtain release” was an obligation of the State, not the courts 

specifically. Id. at 73-75, 79, 82. 

¶ 24 Later, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 211-12 (2016), the Court determined 

that resentencing was not required in every case where a juvenile received life without parole 

and that the State may remedy such constitutional violation by permitting juvenile offenders 

to be considered for parole.3 In doing so, it approvingly cited a Wyoming statute—similar to 

the new parole statute here—that affords juvenile offenders eligibility for parole after 25 years’ 

imprisonment. Id. at 212. The Court explained that “parole ensures that juveniles whose crimes 

reflected only transient immaturity—and who have since matured—will not be forced to serve 

a disproportionate sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Id. Therefore, providing 

an opportunity to obtain parole remedies the constitutional violation of imposing a life sentence 

on a juvenile offender, as it resolves the primary concern of Graham—that a juvenile may one 

day change and reenter society. The Illinois Supreme Court and a number of our sister states 

have reached the same conclusion. People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 56; see Hicklin v. 

Schmitt, 613 S.W.3d 780, 791 (Mo. 2020) (en banc); State v. McCleese, 215 A.3d 1154, 1170 

(Conn. 2019) (collecting cases).

¶ 25 Defendant argues that, even if the statute provides a meaningful opportunity for release 

after its enactment, defendant is mathematically unable to take full advantage of the system as 

enacted. He explains that, in enacting the new parole statute, the legislature intended to provide 

defendants under the age of 21 the opportunity for release 10 years into their sentences, 

whereas he will have his first opportunity 37 years into his sentence, which is on the doorstep 

3

Note, Montgomery addressed a claim under Miller, 567 U.S. at 489, which held that a mandatory 

life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender who committed a homicide is unconstitutional 

because a court could not consider a juvenile’s youth and attendant circumstances in imposing a 

sentence. Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 210. However, Montgomery’s determination relied on the State 

providing a meaningful opportunity to obtain release through the parole system, rather than the State 

relitigating the sentence so that a court may consider a juvenile’s youth and attendant circumstances 

before determining a life sentence was appropriate. See id. at 212. As such, Montgomery’s statements 

are applicable here. 
- 7 -

of serving a de facto life sentence. Further, under the statute, the legislature provided 

defendants under 21 three opportunities for parole review in the first 23 years of their 

sentences, which would occur much later for defendant. 

¶ 26 While we empathize that defendant cannot take full advantage of the new parole statute—

in that he will first obtain the opportunity for parole after serving 37 years’ imprisonment4

rather than 10 years—the statute still affords defendant a meaningful opportunity for release 

based on his maturity and rehabilitation before a de facto life sentence of over 40 years’ 

imprisonment. This is all that is required of the eighth amendment and Illinois precedent.

¶ 27 1. Ex Post Facto Claim

¶ 28 Defendant also argues that the application of the new parole statute effectively writes a 

new offense into the criminal code in order to “cure” the unconstitutionality of defendant’s 

prior sentence, violating the ex post facto clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10). According to 

defendant, “without the availability of the parole statute, defendant could have been 

resentenced to no more than 40 years under Supreme Court and Illinois precedent.” He 

contends the new parole statute attempts to remedy a constitutional defect in a manner that 

allows for the imposition of a sentence that could not otherwise be imposed. Defendant’s 

arguments, however, misconstrue United States Supreme Court and Illinois precedent.

¶ 29 The constitution prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws, including “[e]very law that 

changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, 

when committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peugh, 569 U.S. at 538. A law violates 

the ex post facto clause where it “presents a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of 

punishment attached to the covered crimes.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 539. 

Mere speculation that a law retroactively increases the punishment for a crime is insufficient. 

Id.

¶ 30 As explained above, under Graham and Buffer, a nonhomicide juvenile offender cannot be 

sentenced over 40 years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Graham explicitly 

explained that it did not require a nonhomicide juvenile offender to be released from prison 

during his or her lifetime. Graham, 560 U.S. at 75. As such, defendant has never been entitled 

to a sentence of no more than 40 years. Under this precedent—defendant was entitled to a 

meaningful opportunity for release before a de facto life sentence of more than 40 years’ 

imprisonment. See id. at 82; Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 41. The new parole statute, which 

affords defendant the opportunity for parole, does not—as defendant claims—“allow for the 

imposition of a sentence that could not otherwise be imposed.” Rather, it statutorily requires 

the State to comply with the mandates of Graham. The application of the new parole statute 

therefore does not violate the ex post facto clause. See Jackson v. Vannoy, 981 F.3d 408, 417 

(5th Cir. 2020) (Louisiana statute affording juvenile defendant eligibility for parole 

consideration after 25 years’ imprisonment did not violate the ex post facto clause).

4

We note that the new parole statute allows the Board to set defendant’s parole hearing before the 

three-year delay period in section 5-4.5-115(c) upon a motion for good cause. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115(i) 

(West 2020). 
- 8 -

¶ 31 2. Statute on Statutes Claim

¶ 32 We also reject defendant’s argument that the application of the new parole statute to him 

violates the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/4 (West 2020)). The Statute on Statutes is a general 

savings clause that is applicable only where the legislature failed to clearly indicate a statute’s 

temporal reach. People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 22. Here, the legislature clearly provided 

the new parole statute’s temporal reach through the plain language of the statute in that it 

applied to a person under 21 years old at the time of the offense and “who is sentenced on or 

after June 1, 2019.” (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115(b) (West 2020). Accordingly, 

the Statute on Statutes is inapplicable here. 

¶ 33 Moreover, we note, defendant’s argument relies on his mistaken belief that he accrued a 

right—under Graham and Buffer—to be sentenced to 40 years or under and the application of 

the new parole statute would affect that right. To reiterate, Graham did not require 

nonhomicide offenders to be released within their lifetime. Graham, 560 U.S. at 75, 82. 

Instead, such offender must be provided some meaningful opportunity for release. Id. at 82. A 

state’s grant of parole eligibility is sufficient to comply with Graham’s constitutional 

mandates. Supra ¶¶ 22-24.

¶ 34 Accordingly, the new parole statute applies to defendant. Defendant’s sentence is therefore 

constitutionally valid. 

¶ 35 C. Day-for-Day Good Conduct Credit Statute

¶ 36 Based on similar reasons stated herein, in Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 65, our supreme court 

decided good conduct credit statutes could be considered in determining whether a defendant’s 

sentence amounts to a de facto life sentence in violation of the eighth amendment. It reasoned 

that such statutes serve the purposes of Graham and its progeny by allowing an offender to 

earn the opportunity to eventual release by exhibiting maturity and rehabilitation. Id. ¶¶ 52-53. 

The court flatly rejected the argument that day-for-day good conduct credit should not be 

considered because the trial court has no control over how it is earned or lost, noting good 

conduct credit statutes afford greater certainty than affording a juvenile the opportunity for 

parole, which the Supreme Court has determined remedies an eighth amendment violation. Id.

¶¶ 56-57. Accordingly, “a judicially imposed sentence that is more than 40 years but offers 

day-for-day, good-conduct sentencing credit does not cross the Buffer line if it offers the 

opportunity to demonstrate maturity and obtain release with 40 years or less of incarceration.” 

Id. ¶ 63.

¶ 37 Under the good conduct credit statute applicable to defendant’s case, he was entitled to one 

day of good conduct credit for every one day served in prison, which reduces the inmate’s 

period of incarceration by one day. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, ¶ 1003-6-3(a)(2); Dorsey, 2021 

IL 123010, ¶ 51. Defendant here was sentenced to 80 years’ imprisonment and could be 

released after 40 years’ imprisonment under the statute. As such, defendant’s sentence also 

complies with the eighth amendment based on the application of the day-for-day good conduct 

statute. See Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 64.

¶ 38 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 39 Defendant’s de facto life sentence is not unconstitutional because the new parole statute 

and day-for-day good conduct credit statute afford him meaningful opportunities for release 
- 9 -

before he served a de facto life sentence. Because defendant never had a right to be sentenced 

for no more than 40 years, the application of the new parole statute to defendant does not 

violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution or the Statute on Statutes.

¶ 40 Affirmed.