No. 2-08- 0599 File d: 6-10-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f La ke Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 07-- CF--3565 ) JERRY B. HOLMA

N, ) Ho no r ab le ) Chri stopher R. St ride, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEMc LA

RE N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Jerry B . Holm

an, was conv

icted by a j ury of possession of a controlled substance wi thi n ten t to deliv er (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2006)). He was sen tenced to 14 yea

rs ' impr is onment plus

a 3-yea r term of m

andatory superv

is ed rele ase (MSR). On appeal , defen dan t argue s tha

t: (1) the tria l courterred in

fai li ng to grant his m

ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce; (2) he was deni ed hi s righ t t o due pr oc ess w hen t he t rial co ur t pr ohibit ed d efense co unse l from us ing demo nst ra t iveev ide nc e d ur ing cr o ss - ex amina t io n; ( 3) t he t r ia lcou rt er red i n i m pos i ng a f eef or reim bursem ent of court-appo in

ted co unse l; and ( 4) t he t rial co ur t er re d in sent encing de f en da n t to
a three-y ear term of MSR where he wa s c onv

i cte d of a Class 1 f

el ony tha t carries onl

y a two- ye ar MSR term. We

aff irm in part, vacate in part, and rem and. I. BACKG

ROUNDNo. 2-- 08--0599

-2-

Pri orto trial , defen

dant's attorney l

eft the publ

ic defen der's off ic e but was granted

l ea v e to continue to re pr es en t de f en da n t pr o bo no as pri

vate counsel . The succee ding assist an t pu blic def ender was the

n a ll owed to wi

thdra w ascoun sel . Af

ter a sh ort exch ange b etween the tri al

court and the attorneys prese

nt, the trial c ourt assess ed a publ ic defen der fee of $1,200. The fo llo win g e vid en ce wa s a dd uc ed at t r ial. Waukegan police off ic er Joshua Am

ann testifi ed that on Septembe

r 15, 20 07 , he w as

pa trol l i n g a b i ke pa th in Waukegan

that he descri

bed as an area ha vi ng "a l ot of graf

fi ti" an d "activ ity ." At 9 p.m., Am

ann saw two men wa

lki ng toward his

parked squ ad c ar . O ne man, Do nald Da gen, was car rying wha t Amann be l i eved wa s a 40- oun cebottl e of alcohol . The

other m an , def endan t, was n ot carry i ng a ny thi ng. Am ann an nounced he was a

police off ic er an d t ur ne d o n his sq ua d c ar 's s po t ligh t . He o r de r ed t he m lo ud ly t o "c o me here." Dagen put t he bot t le do wn nea r t he bike p at h. The n he and defend ant veer ed o ff the p at h and c ro uche d behind
so me bushes. A

t thi s p oi n t, Am ann could see onl

y the to ps of thei

r heads. A

ma nn c alle d for backup and agai n ordered the two me

n to come over a nd tal k to hi m . Af ter "a f ew s econ ds," defend ant and Dagen em erged from the bush es and approached the squad ca r . Aman n ha d t he m st an d w it h t he ir han ds on the squad

ca r un ti l two other p ol i ceof

f i cers arr i ve d a ppr oxi mate l y a m i nu te or two la ter. The of f i cers the n p atte d dow

n both m en . A man n te sti f i ed tha t the y di d n ot f i nd an y we ap ons or co nt ra band o n eithe r man. While the backup of

fi cers watched def

endan t, Aman n search ed the b ush es i n the are a wh

ere he saw Dagen

and def endan t cro uc h down. He found a b ag contain in g 20 in div idua ll y w rapped "crack" co caine rock s sitting on a leaf that was gro win g underneath the bushes. Dag en and defend ant were place d un

der ar rest an d ha ndc uf f ed. Th ey were tran sp or ted

to th e p oli ce

sta ti on i n se pa ra te squad cars. Am an n n otice d def endan t mov i ng a round i n the b acks eat of

his sq uad. He t old defend antNo. 2-- 08--0599

-3-

he always se ar ched his car aft er t ra nspo rt ing anyone . Amanntestifi ed that defen

dant repli ed t hat he
was "throwing c

rack rocks in

the back o f [his] squ ad c ar ." Afte r d efenda nt was bro ught into t he sta ti on for bookin

g, Am ann searched the c ar whi

le it was i n the poli

ce garage and f

ound 10 i ndi vi dual l y pack aged crack rocks

on the f l oor of the

car. Three offi

cers t hen c o nd uc t ed a " st r ip s ea r ch " o f de fen da nt an d fo un d s ev en ind ividua lly wrapp ed " crack" c ocai

ne rocks i n the el asti c of his un derwe ar. Waukegan

po lice dep ar t ment Lie ut en an t Jo n O liver , t he St at e' s e xp er t wit ne ss in narcot ics, testifi ed regardin g the packagi

ng an d the weight of the pa ckages of cocaine. During crossexam i na ti on of Ol iver , d efense co unse l used a whit ebo ar d t o r eco rd Oliver's r esp ons es r ega rd ing fact ors t hat he ro ut inely conside re d in det er mini ng whe t her a pe rso n po sses sed nar co t ics wit h t he intent to se l l

the m . In i ti al l y , th e tri al cou rt al l owe d de f

ense cou nsel to pr oc eed ove r t he St at e's objec t ion t o t he use of the b oard. When defense counsel

wrot e "facts are bett er than assumptions"
on the b oard, the trial

co urt sustained the State's obj ection on the ground that the phrase was argumen tative. The trial

court allowed

def en se c ouns el

to conti nue usi ng th e b oard to record

a few
m ore o f Oliv er 's r es po nse s s uc h a s " ce ll ph on e, " " mon ey

," an d " sc al es ," un ti l th e S tate re n ew ed i ts objec t ion. Aft er rulin g t ha t t he us e o f t he bo ar d u nfa irlyhig hlig ht ed t he o ffice r 's t es t imo ny dur ing his
cross-exam

i nation an d was un fa i rly prej udici al , the tria

l court to l d def

ens e couns el

that he c ould: "m ake a l i st of a l l the th i ngs the of f i cer testif i es to tha t are factors and those thi ngs that are no t , an d in his c lo sing ar gu men t he is ce rt ain ly en ti tl ed to produce

an ex h i b i t wh i ch re f l ects those it ems . Bu t I find t ha t in cr os s-e xaminatio n, befo re t he St at e has re st ed it s pr oo fs, a nd be f ore we hav e e ven go t t en t o a d efe nse ca se, [ sic ] t ha t t he effe ct o f t his e xhib it is p ur ely prej udicial ."No. 2-- 08--0599

-4-

Defend ant was convi

cted of one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance wi th i nten t to deli ver. 720 IL CS 57 0/401 (c)(2) (W est 200 6). II. AN AL YSIS A. Deni al of Motion to Suppress Eviden ce Defend ant first ar gue s t hat t he trial court erred by

deny in g hi s m ot ion to suppress the ev

ide nce because the cocain

e was recovered

asa re sul t of hi s u nc ons ti tutiona l se izu re. Cou rts of r ev iew ap ply
a t wo -p ar t st and ar d o f r evie w w hen fa ce d wi th a ch al l en ge to a tr i al cou rt' s r ul i n g on a m oti on to suppress ev

ide nce. Peo ple v. Lue demann , 22 2 Il l . 2d 530 (20 06) . F i

rs t, th e tri al cou rt' s f i nd i ng s of hi storical fact are revi

ewed onl y f or clear error, and deferen ce is affor ded t o a ny inf

er ence s t he factf in der dre w f rom those f acts. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542. We wil l n ot dis turb the trial

co ur t 's factual f i ndi ngs unl ess they areagai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542 . "A fi

ndi ng i s against t he man ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e o nly if t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n is cle ar ly evi den t or if the f i ndi ng i tself i s un reas onabl e, arb i

trary , or not based on the e vi dence pres en ted." Peop l e v . De l eon , 227 Ill . 2d 3 22, 33 2 ( 20 08 )
. T his d efe r en t ial s t an da r d o f r ev iew is groundedin the reali

ty that t he t rial co ur t is in a sup er ior po sitio n t o d et er mine and we igh t he
cred i b i l i ty of t he wit ne ss es , o bse rve t he wit ne ss es ' d eme an o r , an d r es o lve co nflic t s int he irt es t imo ny. Peop l e v . Ri

ch ardson, 234 Il

l . 2d 233 , 251 (2 009). Howev er , the rev

i ewi n g c our t i s f re e to assess t he facts i n relation to t he i ssue s presen ted in the case an d ma y draw i ts own conclus ions

when dec idingwhat rel

i ef shoul d be gran ted. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542. We revi ew de no vo the trial court's ul tim ate legal rul i ng on the m otion to suppre ss. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542. The f our th am en dm en t to the Uni

ted St at es Co nst it ut io n a nd ar t icle I , se ct io n 6 , o f t he I llino is Consti tution pro tect citizen

s from unreasonabl

e searches and sei

zures. U. S. Co nst . , ame nd
. I V; I ll.No. 2-- 08--0599

-5-

Const. 1970, art . I, §6. A person is "sei zed" wit hin t he mea ning o f t he fo ur t h a men dme nt wh en , in viewof the surroundi

ng ci rcumstances, a reasonab le person would b elie

ve h e was n ot f

re e to le ave, and the pers on su

bm i ts to the pol

i ce orde r. People v . Thomas , 198 Il l . 2d 103 , 111 (2 001). In Thomas , th e def

en da nt d i d n ot submit t o t he pol

i ceorde r an d f l ed f rom the pol i ce , f i rs t on
a b ic ycle and t hen o n foo t , a nd pr event ed w hat wo uld have been a n unlawfu l sto p: "Ha d t he de fen da nt st o pp ed wh en his pa th wasobs

tructed , h ad

he su bm i tted to [ the

pol i ceof f i cer' s] sh owof
au t ho r it y, a s eiz ur e o f t he ki nd of f en si ve to our consti

tution would ha

ve occurre d. [The of

f i cer]
wo uld ha ve ef f ec ted an i nv es ti ga tory stopab sent th

e re qui si te d egree of sus picion t o s upp or t it. The stopwoul

d ha ve constituted

an unr eas onabl e se izureof the defend ant 's pe rso n. H ow ever , [ t he offi cer's] at t empt t o e ffect an unlaw ful st op did no t impli cat e t he fo ur t h amendment beca use t he defend ant to ok fli

ght and prevented it." Thomas , 198 Ill . 2d at 112, quo ting People v . Thomas , 315 Ill . Ap p. 3d 84 9, 857 ( 2000)
. In this case, Am ann was patrollin

g a bi ke path i n an area that was known

fo r"a lo t o f gr affit i" and "acti vi ty ." A t 9 p. m ., A

man n s aw two m en wal ki ng towa rd h i s p ark ed sq uad c ar. On

e of them
was car ryingwh

at A man n b el i ev ed wa s a 40 -ou n ce b ottle of al coh ol . Th e s ec on d m

an, de f en da n t, was not car rying anyt hing. Amann a nnou nced he was a poli ce officer and t ur ned o n his squ ad c ar 's sp otli gh t. He ord ered t hem

loudly to "come here." It wa s a t thi s p oi nt th at d ef en da nt' s c om pa ni on put do wn t he bo t t le he wa s ca rr ying and he and de fend ant "ve er ed " o ff the pat h and i

nto t he bush

es. Amann could still

see whe re they we

re, and when

they e me rged from the

bush es 5 to 10 seconds l ater, they approac he d hi s sq uad c ar. Mom

en ts l ater, b acku

p of f i cers had a rr ived. The sea rc h of t he bush es wher e Amann o bser ved d efenda nt and his c omp anion s t oo p do wn r evea led co caine "re st ingNo. 2-- 08--0599

1 Co mmo n se nse wo uld i

n di ca te that t he posi

tioni ng of a b ag of crack rocks "on a leaf" was somewh at precarious and would not have rem ai ned as pl aced f or very l ong. -6- on a l eaf." Im

me dia tely after the cocai

ne was found i n the b ushes , Am

ann pla ced def endan t under
ar re st. Defend ant ar gu es t ha t Aman n ha d n o jus t ifiab le basis f or ini tiatin g a Terry st op , be cau se t he f acts of thi s case establi

sh onl y a me re hunch on the part o f the of

fi cer, rather than

sp ec ific a rt icu lab le f acts th at, wh

en tak en togeth er wi th ra t ional infere nces , w ar ra nt ed t he in trusion. See T er ry v. Oh io , 392 U. S. 1 , 20- 21, 2 0 L. Ed. 2d 889, 905-06, 88 S. Ct. 1 868 , 18 79- 80 ( 196 8). How ever, the stop i tse l f di d n ot pr od uce any "fru it o f the po isono us t re e. " The re for e, t he ca ses c ited by def endan t are i na ppos i te, a s th e c i rcu m sta nc esdif f er i n th at th i s s ea rch wa s n ot the prod uc t of an i m proper Terry stop. We m

ust poin t out that we do not agree wi th the St at e's argum

en t that the p oli

ce we re jus tif ie d in ma kin g a Terry stopbe caus e def

endan t "evaded " the

poli ce of f i cer. Thi s does not appear to be an "unprovoked

fli ght " o n t he part o f def

endan t, as asserted by

the Stat e. However, a perim eter sea rch by an ex peri enced of f i cer l ed to the d

i scovery of the coca

i ne . A reasonabl

e i nf erence is that de f en da n t, who la ter was f ound to possess 17 si

mi la rpac kag es o f co caine, place d it on t he leaf in the
area wh er e h e h ad be en o bse rve d s pe nd ing a fe w mo men t s d ur ing his ev en ing st r o ll. 1 See Peo ple v. Lo ng , 36 9 I ll. App. 3d 860, 869 (2007) (police off ic ers had prob ab l e c au se

to arres t de f

en da nt f or pos se ss i on

of baggi es of cocai

ne f ound on fl oor under bar tabl

e near def endan t's fe et, despite presence of 3 5 to 40 patron s i

n the b ar). The amo unt o f t ime t hat had pa ss ed and t he p ro ximity o f de fe n da n t to the bush

es render
r ea so na ble the inf

erence that d efendan

t po ssess ed the cocain

e. Defen dant aban doned the drugsNo. 2-- 08--0599

-7-

be f ore he wa s seize d. He w as no t seized unt il he ret ur ned t o t he pa t h, a ppr oa ched t he sq uad car , a nd subm itted t o t he o r de r . T he alle ge dly u nla wfu l se izu r e a t t he t ime o f su bmiss io n d idno t r es ult in the
recovery of a ny evidence . T hus, t he ar re st base d o n t he drugs found duri ng the peri

me ter search was proper, and the search i

nci dent to t hat arrest was val id. B. Deni al of Use of D em

onstrative Evi

dence Defend ant next co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t 's de cision t o p ro hibit t he use of the wh

i teboard d ur ing cros s-exam

in ation of the State's ex

pert witness was

an ab use of discretion that deni ed defend ant his right t o du e p r o ce ss an d a fair t r ial. The use of d emons t ra t ive evidenc e lies wit hin the
so und di screti

on of the tri al cou rt, a nd werev i ew the tri al cou rt's deci sion for an ab

use of that discr et ion. Pe o ple v. Williams , 275 I ll . App. 3d 24 2, 248 ( 1995). " < Abuse of discretion' is the m ost deferen tial standard of revi

ew--next to no review at all --and i s th ere f ore tradi ti ona l l y res erv ed f or dec isions made b

y a tri al j udg e i n ov ers ee i ng hi s or he r cou rtroom orin maintainingthe

prog res s of
a trial." Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , 367 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 65 3, 664 ( 2006)
. An abuse of dis cretion occurs when t he t r ial c o ur t 's d ec isio n is " fan cifu l, ar bit r ar y, o run r ea so na ble " t o su ch a d eg r ee t ha t no r ea so na ble pers on woul

d agre e wi

th i t. Peop l e v . Ca

m pos , 349 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 17 2, 175 ( 2004)
. Dur ingcros s- exam

i na ti on of Oliver, t he St at e's expert witnes s i n na rcot ic s, defen

se counsel used a whit ebo ar d t o r eco rd Oliver's t est imony reg ar ding fact or s t hat he r ou t ine ly cons ide r ed in det er mini ng wh et he r , in his o pin io n, a p er so n p o ss es se d n ar co t ics wit h t he int en t t o se ll t he m. I nit iall y, th e tr

i al cou rt al l owe d def

ense cou n se l to proceed over the obje ction of the State. The trial courtsu stai

ne d the Sta

te' s ob j ec ti on on t he gr ou nd

that t he phrase "f

acts are bet ter t han assum

ptions"
was ar gument at ive. T he t rial co ur t allowe d de fense c ou nsel t o c ont inue us ing the b oard to record Olive r's resp onse s, un

til the State renewed i ts obj ection. A

t thi s poi nt, the tria l court i nf orme dNo. 2-- 08--0599

-8-

defense cou n se l th at h e w as en ti tl ed to prep are a

n ex hi b i t f or u se du ri n g c l osi n g a rgum en t, but ruled that t he us e o f the boa rd unfairly highlighted t he officer 's t est imony dur inghis cro ss- examinat ion and
wa s p r eju dic ial. To be allo we d, de mo nst r at ive ev ide nc e mu st be r ele va nt t o an is su e o f t he ca se . "C er t ain demo nst ra t iveaid s, su ch as t ho se wh ich illus t r at e a nd t hu s a ss ist t he jur y in understandi

ng testim onia l evi dence, ma y b e allowed

at tria l . [Ci tation .] Howev

er, an ex hibit wh ich mer ely s umma r ize s c lea r ly
unde r st an da ble t est imony and t her eby ser ves o nly to memor ialize par t icular evidenc e sho uld be disal lowed." Pe o ple v. Williams , 161 Ill . 2d 1, 67-68 (1994); see Simmons v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 118 I ll. App. 3d 6 76, 684 -8 5 ( 198 3) (d isallowa nce o f the use of o ver head slides t o a cco mpany a defense wi t ness's tes tim

ony was a proper exerci se of the court's di scretion b ecause the ev ide nce was cum ulati ve ); Peop l e v . K

i ni on , 105 Ill . App. 3d 1069, 1076-77 (1982) (allowan ce of a ch art summarizing the opi

ni on testi mony of a n expe rt wi tnes s wa s an

abuse of d i scre tion ). A ny l ay ma n would un derstand the term s su ch as " m oney ," "c el l phon e," and ev en "sc al es" ast es t ified t o by t his witness. In othe

r words, w

hi l e thi s wi tnes s wa s an

ex pert, h i s te sti

mony on c ros s- exam

i na ti on co nc er ne d m at t er s t ha t co ul d b e r ea di ly und er st o o d b y t he jury fr o m his o r al t es t imo ny. Furth er, the r eco r d r efle ct s t ha t de fen se co un se l ga ve no ind ica t io n t o t he t r ial c o ur t o f his i nte nti on to us e th e b oard a s a

v i sual ai d. A f ter h e b eg an to wr i te on i t, t he t rial co ur t ove rr uled t he Stat e's obj ection, and i

t was only

after defen se counsel

began to write what can

only be consi dered his own i n ter pr eta ti on of Ol i v er ' s te sti mo ny that t he trial court sust ain ed the St ate's objections. Dur inga si

deb ar conf

eren ce, the court i

nf orme d def

en se c ouns el

that he was

f ree to use

a ch art dur ing hi s closin g argumen

t, but ruled that, at that point in the trial , t he use o f t he bo ar d h ad be co me prejudi ci al and was di

sallowed.No. 2-- 08--0599

-9-

In h i s rep l y b rief , de f en da n t as se rtsth at " de f

ense cou n se l n ee de d th e w h i teb oard to effe ct ive ly
cr os s-e xaminet he o nly Sta t e's w itnes s t est ify ing as to an el em en t of th e of f ense ." He f ur th er as se rts that he had "no other way to prese nt his defen se." We c onsider these assertions to be an
ove rst at ement i

n that the w

hi teboard was being used to merel

y wri te do wn responses that defense
cou ns el wa s e l i ci ti ng f rom t he wit ness d ur ing cr os s-e xaminatio n. T he t est imony was not technical and was c lea r ly un de r st an da ble
. Ha d d efe nse co un se l ch o se n t o us e a ch ar t o f t he ve ry sa me t es t imo ny, he wo uld have been allowed to do so durin

g hi s closin

g argumen

t. Clai mi ng that he h

ad no defen se wi thout the board is

me ritl ess h ype rbole. T his wa s a

matte r f or th e tr i al cou rt to dec i de

an d w e wi l l n ot i n te rfere a bs en t an ab us e of discr et ion. The re for e, we c onc lude t hat t he tria l court did not err

i n prev en ti ng de f ense cou ns el f rom using t he whit ebo ar d as demo nst ra t ive evidenc e du ring c ro ss- examinat ion. C. Fee Im posed for Appoin

ted Counsel The St at e co nced es e rr or , st at ing in i ts bri ef that "[t]h e def endan t comp l ai ns that the tria l court impr o pe r ly

imp osed a f

ee of $1,200 f or the s ervi ces

of the publ i c def

ender' s of f i ce. Th e rec ord in dic ates tha

t he i s c orre ct." Fu

rth er, "[t] he

rec ord d oesnot s how that t he def

endan t was giv en notice of th e f act th at rei

m b ur se men t wa s to b e c on si

dere d b y th e c our t, a n d w as n ot gi v en th e op por tun i ty to pr es en t ev id en ce r eg ar di ng t he pa ymen t o r de r . Ad di t io na lly, the record do es not show the trial
co ur t co nsider ed t he de fendant 's f i n an ci al af f i da v i t." The S tate

con cl udes th at th e req ui re men ts of
se cti on 113 --3 .1( a) of

the Code o f Cri

mi nal Procedures of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/113-- 3.1(a) (West 2006)) were not foll owed. See Peop l e v . Rob ers on , 33 5 Il l . Ap p. 3d 79 8, 804 ( 2002)
. Theref ore, we va cat e t he re imbursement order and reman d for a heari

ng on def endan t's abi li ty to pay for the servi

ces of h is court -appointed atto rney pursuant to sect ion 113--3.1(a) of the Code.No. 2-- 08--0599

-10- D. Mandato ry Supervis ed Release Defend ant argues that hi s three-ye ar term of MSR was erroneous an d s ho uld ha

ve be en a term of t wo years unde r t he pr ovisio ns o f the sent encing statut e. Be ca us e i n ter pr eti n g a sta tute pr es en ts a question of law, our r eview is de no vo . Peo ple v. Do noho , 204 Il l . 2d 159 , 172 (2 003). Defend ant wa s c onv

i cte d of pos se ss i on of

coc ai n e wi th t he int en t t o de live r , a C las s 1 fe lo ny. Due t o his p r ev io us co nvic t io ns h e w as se nt en ce d u nd er t he "h ab it ua l offender" statut e, which
mand ates that when a def endan t is conv icted of a Cl ass 1 or 2 fel ony, af ter havi ng twic e been convi cted of a Class 2 or gr eat er felony, s uch d efenda nt shal l b e sentenc ed as a Class X off ender. 730 ILCS 5/ 5- -5
-- 3( c) (8 ) ( West 200 6) . T he trial court sentenced hi m to 14 years' impriso nment w ith a 3-year term of MSR. The i den tic al i ssue was

rai sed i n a rece nt ca se b ef

ore this court, P eople v. Mc Ki nne y , No. 2--08--0584 (Ma rc h 25, 201 0) , w her e t he defend ant was convi cted of a Class 2 f

el ony, b ut sentenced
as a C l as s X

of f en der b ec au se

of h i s cri m i n al h i sto ry . Th

i s c our t c oncl uded that the term

of MSR ap plic ab le to Class

X f el oni es sh oul d a pp l y an d th at " such a def en da n t < sha ll be sentenced as a Class Xoffend er ' and s hall rece ivethe sentence --the en tire sent ence -- t hat one co nvicte d o f a Class X felony
wo uld receive." (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) McKi nne y , slip op. at4. Three y

ears is the l

ength of MSR ap plic ab le to a Class

X f elony (730 IL CS 5/5 --8--1(d

)(1) (W est 200 6)), wh

i l e the term

of MS R f or a Cl ass 1 f elony i s two y ears (730 ILCS 5/5 --8--1(d

)(2) (W est 200 6)). Defe ndan t, citin g People v . Pull

en , 192 Ill . 2d36 (2000), argues that "t he pl ai n l anguage of the sta tute i s c l ea r--th e c l as s of co nvictio n, no t t he se nt ence , d et er mines what will be t he o ffender 's term of MSR." W

ith l anguage equal

ly applic abl e to t hi s case, t he McKi

nne y opini on dis tingui shed Pull en : "The st at ut e co nsider ed in Pull en does not specif

y wh at sentence a Class X off

ender receives.No. 2-- 08--0599

-11-

Rather, it mer ely li

mits t he extent to which

separate sentences

for separate off

enses ma y be serv ed consecutively

." McKi nne y , sli p op. at 8. Defe ndan t also asserts that this c ourt should not be persuaded by t he de cis io ns in Peo ple v. Wat kins , 387 Ill . App. 3d 7 64 ( 200 9); People v . Sm art , 3 11 I ll. App. 3d 4 15 ( 200 0) ; and Peo ple v. A nd ers on , 272 Ill . App. 3d

53 7 ( 19 95 )
. De fen da nt su gg es t s t ha t t his e nt ire line o f ca se s is wr o ng ly deci ded. Th ese cas es w ereex

tens i ve l y anal y zed b y thi s court in McKi nne y , which then

concl uded: "Al thoughwe a gr ee w ith t he r esu lt r eac hed in A nd ers on , Sm art , a nd Wat kins , we fi

nd them
ove rr eac hingt o t he ex t en t t ha t t he y re lied o n p ub lic p o licy r ea so ns r at he rt ha n t he pla in la nguage of the

relev ant statut es. See In re Est ate o f Snodgrass , 336 Ill . App. 3d 619, 624 (2003) ( no t in g t ha t co nsid er at io ns o f pu blic p o licy s ho uld no t lur e c o ur t s a wa y fro m a statute' s cl

ear l anguag e). In ourview, the plai n l anguage of

the applic abl

e statut es dictates that d efendan

ts sentenced as ClassX off ende rs sh all recei ve the sam

e three-y ear MSR term im posed o n defen

dants convicted of Class X f elonies." McKi

nne y , sli p op. at 6. We ag re e th at th e statu tory man da te means t hat "de fendant shall rec eive a se nt ence t hat one convi cted of a Class X f elony would rece i

ve , i.e. , a pris on term rangi ng f rom 6 to 30 years f

oll owed by a 3-year term of MSR." McKi nne y , slip op. at8. Th er efo re , d efe nda nt , w ho wa s c o nvict ed o f a Class 1 fe lo ny bu t se nt en ce d a s a Cla ss X o ffen de rbe ca us e o f his c r iminal h i story, is s ubj ect to an MSR term of th ree y ears . See 7 30 IL CS 5/5 --5--3(c )(8), 5--8 --1(d)(1 ) (We st 2006 ).

III. CONCLUSION The judg ment o f the circu it co ur t of La ke C ou nt y is affi rmed in par t and va cat ed in pa rt , a nd the cause i s rem

anded.No. 2-- 08--0599

-12-

Af fi rmed i n part and va

cated in part; cause rem

anded. HUTC HINSO

N an d BUR KE, J J., con cur.