1 Rule 23 order filed 201 5 IL App (5th) 12 0 401 July 16, 2015; Motion to publish granted NO. 5

- 12

- 0401 August 20 , 2015. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS , ) A ppe al from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff

- Appellee , ) Perry C ounty. ) v. ) No. 10

- CF

- 82 ) JAMES GLAZIE R , ) Honorable ) James W. Campanella , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) Jud ge, presiding.

________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court , with opinion

. Justice s Goldenhersh and Chapman concurred in the judgment and opinion

. O PINION ¶ 1 The d efendant, James Glazier, was convicted of first

- degree murder after a stipulated bench trial in the circuit court of Perry County and was sentenced to 60 years in prison. The d ef en dant wa s 17 years old at the time of the murder; the victim was 15. ¶ 2 The d efendant raises numerous issues on appeal, the first being that the evidence presented at the stipulated bench trial was insufficient to prove him guilty of first

- degree
murd er in that he did not have the specific intent to kill the victim. The d ef en dant also contends the automatic transfer statute of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705
ILCS 405/5

- 130 (West 2010)) violate s the United S tates and Illinois C onstitutions2 because all 17

- year - olds charged with first

- degree murder are treated as adults during prosecution and sentencing without any consideration of their youthfulness. The d e fen dant further a rgues th at his 60

- year sentence was excessive in light o f his age, his lack of pr i o r criminal histo r y , his secondary role in the of f

ense , and his strong potential for rehabilitation. The d ef en d a nt also finds fault with his counsel at sentencing in that counsel agreed with the State to the maximum sentence of 6 0 years and c ompletely failed to advocate on the defendant's behalf for a lesser sentence

. Lastly, the defen dan t argues that he has been required to register as a sex offender even though the t r ial court made no finding that the first

- degree murder was se xually motivated . We affirm, but remand for a determination as to whether the murder was sexually motivated and whether the defendant is required to register as a sex offender. ¶ 3 We initially note, as previously stated, this case was presented as a stipulat ed bench trial. During a pretrial conference, defense counsel stated that he would be presenting the defen dant' s case as a stipulated bench trial because his primary objective was to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the defend ant' s state ments to the police were properly obtained. The issue pertaining to the suppression of the defendant' s statements to the police , however, is not before us. Accordingly, the facts recited herein are taken both from the stipulated s tatement of facts and the defendant's statements to the police. ¶ 4 According to the stipulated statement of facts, on July 25, 2010, two fishermen contacted the police to report that a badly decomposed body was floating in the creek near the Beaucoup Creek Bridge. After being rec overed, the body was identified with the3 use of dental records as the victim, Sidnee Stephens. The autopsy listed the cause of death as "homicidal violence." ¶ 5 As part of their investigation into Sidnee' s murder, the police questioned various members of the P

- Town Saints, a local gang. One of the leaders of the gang, Carl, gave a statement implicating the defendant in Sidnee's murder. The d efendant denied the allegations and ended the interview with a request for an attorney. Later in the day, the defenda nt' s mother arrived at the police station requesting to speak with her son. She was permitted to speak with him, and shortly thereafter, the defendant agreed to waive his rights and gave a recorded confession pertaining to his involvement in Sidnee 's murd er. ¶ 6 The evidence revealed that on Sunday, July 18, 2010, the defendant was hanging out with other members of the P

- Town Saints, specifically, Carl, who was 18 years old, and Robbie, who was 15 years old. Carl was second in command of the gang, while the d efendant was third in line. For the past three weeks, the defendant had been staying with Carl at the house belonging to Carl' s grandfather. Because Carl did not have a driver' s license, the de fendant drove Carl everywhere. ¶ 7 During the evening of July 18 , Carl, Robbie , and the defendant were driving around town when Carl suddenly announced that they were going to kill Sidnee. Carl had a .22 semi

- automatic in his pants and allegedly told Robbie and the defendant, according to the defendant, that if they di d not cooperate, he would shoot them "on the spot ." Also, according to the defendant, Carl further threatened Robbie and the defendant that if they ever talked, he would kill them as well

.4 ¶ 8 The three arrived at Sidnee' s house around 1 a.m. on July 19

. The d efendant entered the house through an unlocked patio door and opened another door for Robbie and Carl to enter. The d efendant started to wake Sidnee but then jumped on her when she tried to scream. In order to keep her quiet, he put his hand over her m outh. The
d efendant then taped her hands and mouth. While doing so, the defendant put h is arm around Sidnee in a choke hold with the bend of his elbow around her mouth. Sidnee passed out. The d efendant believed Sidnee passed out because he may have bee n choking her too hard. While Sidnee was unconscious, the defendant and Robbie dragged Sidnee ' s body through the yard. When Sidnee came to and tried to yell again, the defendant and Robbie got back on top of her. The d efendant held her down until she passed out again. Carl then told the defendant to get the car. The d efendant did so, and Carl and Robbie dragged Sidnee to the car. She was still passed out when they put her in the car, although the defendant also thoug ht she could already be dead. They then drove to the Beaucoup Creek Bridge, stopping on the bridge midway, and removed Sidnee from the car. As she lay on the ground, Carl told Robbie to turn around. The d efendant closed his eyes and heard four gunshots. The d efendant and Robbie then pushed Sidnee's body off the bridge into the water. The three left to bury Carl' s gun and their clothes. ¶ 9 A few days later, Carl and the defendant returned to the spot where they had thrown Sidnee's body off the bridge. Bec ause her body was floating under the bridge, Carl gave the defendant a cement block and strap to tie around her. The d efendant did as instructed, but not wanting to touch her, he tied the block to her arm

.5 ¶ 10 The d efendant did not know why Carl wanted to kil l Sidnee. Carl and Sidnee had dated at one point , but she had broken up with him some two or three months earlier and already had started dating someone else. The d efendant further reported that Sidnee had the reputation for being a snitch and she allege dly had snitched on the defendant to their school. ¶ 11 The trial court reminded the defendant that after the reading of the stipulated statement of facts, and without any further evidence from the defendant, it was inevitable that he would be found guilty of t he offense of first

- degree murder. The d efendant did not present any other evidence, and the court accordingly found him guilty. The court also honored the agreed

- upon recommendation for a sentence of 60 years, and further noted that it should not be mis understood that the defenda nt was pleading guilty. ¶ 12 The d efendant argues on appeal that the evidence presented at the stipulated bench trial was insufficient to prove he was guilty of first

- degree murder when it was not shown that he had the specific intent to kill Sidnee or that his alleged actions of strangling her caused her death. ¶ 13 When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Evans , 209 Ill. 2d 194, 209, 808 N.E.2d 939, 947 (2004) ; People v. Givens , 364 Ill. App. 3d 37, 43, 846 N.E.2d 951, 956 (2005)

. Even in a stipulated bench trial, the State must still prove the defendant' s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Horton , 143 Ill. 2d 11, 21, 570 N.E.2d 320, 324 (1991). A fter a6 stipulated bench trial in which sufficient evidence is presented, however, factual guilt is a foregone conclusion. People v. Gonzalez , 313 Ill. App. 3d 607, 617

- 18, 730 N.E.2d 534, 544 (2000). Neither a reasonable defendant nor a prosecutor would choose to pursue a stipulated bench trial if the evidence were doubtful. Gonzalez , 313 Ill. App. 3d at 617, 730 N.E.2d at 544. ¶ 14 A defendant commits first

- degree murder when he kills an individual without lawful justification and he intends to kill that individual. 720 ILCS 5/9

- 1(a)(1) (West 2010). The State need not prove a d efen dant' s intent to kill by direct evidence . T h e intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the death. People v. Givens , 364 Ill. App. 3d 37, 44, 846 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2005). Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumsta nces from which the trier of fact may infer other connected facts that human experience dictates usually and reasonably follow. People v. Grathler , 368 Ill. App. 3d 802, 808, 858 N.E.2d 937, 942 (2006). The d efendant believes the evidence here proves tha t it was Carl ' s plan to kill Sidnee and that it was Carl who threatened to kill him and Robbie if they did not cooperate. It was also Carl who threatened to kill them if they ever tal ked about the incident. According to the defendant, he did what Carl to ld him to do at gunpoint. As the defendant points out, he clearly took Carl' s threats seriously, as evidenced by his refusing to talk to the police until assured that Carl was in jail and could not hurt him. Moreover, the defendant asserts he never inten ded to kill Sidnee. He was only trying to get her to stop moving and yelling. It was Carl who shot her after she had passed out. The d efendant points to the fact that the precise circumstances of how Sidnee died were not shown by the autopsy. In fact, he7 argues, the autopsy did not indicate whether the cause of her death was from being choked, from the gunshots fired by Carl, or from drowning. ¶ 15 While the State does have the burden of proving a def endant' s intent in a murder case, that burden is met when the State has established that the defendant voluntarily and willfully committed an act, the natural tendency of which is to cause death or great bodily harm. People v. Fickett , 204 Ill. App. 3d 220, 232, 562 N.E.2d 238, 245 (1990). Since proof of a defenda nt' s intent to kill can rarely be based on direct evidence, such intent may be implied from the character of the act. People v. Givens , 364 Ill. App. 3d 37, 44, 846 N.E.2d 951, 95 7 (2005); Fickett , 204 Ill. App. 3d at 232, 562 N.E.2d at 245. A def endant is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his or her acts. Evidence that the defendant committed a voluntary and willful act which has the natural tendency to cause death or great bodily harm is sufficient to prove the intent r equired for the offense of murder. Givens , 364 Ill. App. 3d at 44, 846 N.E.2d at 957 ; Fickett , 204 Ill. App. 3d at 232, 562 N.E.2d at 245

. ¶ 16 Although the defendant now claims he may not have wanted to kill Sidnee, the sole reason he went to her house with C arl and Robbie in th e early morning hours of July 19 was to kill her. The d efendant put his hand over her mouth , and when she broke free, he jumped on her and put a choke hold on her until she passed out . The act of putting a
choke hold on a person until they are unconscious , or possibly even dead , and then helping throw the body off a bridge into the creek below are intentional act s which represented a gross indifference to the life of Sidnee . A defendant must be presumed to intend the natural and proba ble consequences of his acts. Evidence that the defendant8 committed a voluntary and willful act such as choking, which has the natural tendency to cause death, is sufficient to prove the intent required for the offense of murder. See
Givens , 364 Ill. App . 3d at 44, 846 N.E.2d at 957; Fickett , 204 Ill. App. 3d at 233, 562 N.E.2d at 245. Moreover, t he mere fact that Carl had a gun and threatened to use it on the defendant is insufficient to absolve defendant of his actions. The d efendant entered Sidnee' s house alone. He could have refused to let Carl or Robbie inside, or he could have woken the family, or called the police. At another point, a fter dragging Sidnee' s unconscious body outside, the defendant left for several minutes to get the car. The d efendant could have gotten in the car and kept driving, away from the scene. Instead, he drove back to Sidnee' s location and then helped put her body in the car. As previously noted, the d efendant and Carl were in the same gang. The d efendant stated tha t he would take a bullet for Carl because they were such tight friends and that they would never keep anything from each other. He also admitted to hating snitches and declared he would do bodily harm to someone if they snitched. There was more than suff icient evidence
p resented to establish the defendant' s intent to kill in this instance

. ¶ 17 The d efendant asserts that Sidnee might not have died from the defendant choking her, and she might have died from the shots fired by Carl, or she might have drowned af

ter being thrown off the bridge. While true, it is immaterial. It has long been established that a person is guilty of murder if his criminal acts contribute to causing the victim' s death, even if those acts are not the sole and immediate cause of death. People v.
Crane , 333 Ill. App. 3d 768, 773, 776 N.E.2d 892, 898 (2002); People v. Derr , 316 Ill. App. 3d 272, 276, 736 N.E.2d 693, 698 (2000). The d efendant ' s actions caused, or at9 least contributed to , Sidnee' s death. His act of choking her, be it to her death or simply to unconsciousness, contributed to causing her death, even if that act was not the sole and immediate cause of her death. See Derr , 316 Ill. App. 3d at 276, 736 N.E.2d at 698. Again, there was more than sufficient evidence presented t o establish that the defendant intended to murder Sidnee and that he caused her death. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the inferences accepted by the trial court, acting as finder of fact, are neither inherently im possible nor unreasonable. Instead, the evidence proves the defendant particip ated in a cold

- blooded murder. ¶ 18 The d efendant next contends on appeal that the exclusive jurisdiction and automatic transfer statutes of the Juvenile Co urt Act of 1987 violate th e United States and Illinois Constitutions because they treat all 17

- year - old minors charged with first

- degree murder as adults during prosecution and sentencing, without any consideration of their youthfulness and its attendant characteristics

. ¶ 19 We initial ly note that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo

. People v. Hollins , 2012 IL 112754, ¶ 13 , 971 N.E.2d 504 . We have a duty to construe a statute in a manner that upholds its validity and constitutionality if it can be reasonably done. Hollins , 2012 IL 112754, ¶ 13 , 971 N.E.2d 504

. A statute will be upheld under the rational basis test , provided no fundamental right is at issue, if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose and is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Hollins , 2012 IL 112754, ¶ 15 , 971 N.E.2d 504

. ¶ 20 Under section 5

- 130(1)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act), 17

- year - old defendants ch arged with first

- degree murder are statutorily excluded from proceedings10 under the Act. 705 ILCS 405/5

- 130(1)(a) (West 2010) . If such a defendant is convicted, the court must sentence the offender to a term of 20 to 60 years or more in prison. 705
ILCS 405/5

- 130(1)(c)(i) (West 2010); 730 ILCS 5/5

- 4.5

- 20(a), 5

- 8

- 1 (West 2010)

. The legislature enacted the exclu ded jurisdiction statutes in response to the overall rise in violent juvenile crime

. People v. J.S. , 103 Ill. 2d 395 , 406

- 07, 469 N.E.2d 1090, 109 6 (1984)

. Given that the State has a legitimate interest in curtailing crime and in promoting the safety and welfare of its citizenry, in addition to the fact that no defendant has a constitutional, common law , or statutory right to be treated as a juveni le (see In re M.I. , 2013 IL 113776, ¶ 46 , 989 N.E.2d 173 ; P eople v. P .H. , 145 Ill. 2d 209, 223 , 582 N.E.2d 700, 706 (1991) ), the legislature has the authority to define the limits of juvenile court jurisdiction. See People v. J.S. , 103 Ill. 2d 395, 402 , 4 69 N.E.2d 1090, 1093 (1984). It is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable for the legislature to require criminal prosecution and sentencing for older juveniles charged with the worst crimes. P.H. , 145 Ill. 2d at 232

- 33, 582 N.E.2d at 711. The legislature r ationally determined that removing such minors from the shelter of the juvenile system would better protect the public. Accordingly, our court s ha ve determined that excluded jurisdiction provisions comport with both substantive and procedural due process. See, e.g. , People v. J.S. , 103 Ill. 2d 395 , 469 N.E.2d 1090 (1984) . See also People v. Patterson , 2014 IL 115102 , 25 N.E.3d 526 ; People v.
Harmon , 2013 IL App (2d) 120439 , 26 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. W illis , 2013 IL App (1st )
110233 , 997 N.E.2d 947

. ¶ 21 Similarly, statutorily excluding 17

- year - old homicide defendants from juvenile court does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the e ighth a mendment of11 the U nited States Constitution or violate the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 1 1) . The automatic transfer provision governs only the procedure to be used for adjudicating the culpability of the juvenile under the c riminal

c ode, ref lecting a legislative determination that certain minors are not eligible for the administrative scheme of the juvenile court

. Harmon , 2013 I L App (2d) 120439, ¶¶ 55,
62 , 26 N.E. 3d 344

. It decides which forum will hear a juvenile defendant ' s case ; it does not determine a juvenile de fendant' s specific sentence

. I n re M.I. , 2013 I L 113776, ¶ 44 , 989 N.E.2d 173; In re M.C. , 319 Ill. App. 3d 713, 7 19, 745 N.E.2d 122, 127 (2001). T he determination that a juv e nile' s case will not be tried in juvenile court obviously impact s the severity of the potential sentence , but it doe s not become part of the sentencing
process. Rather, the transfer decision occurs before a finding of guilt, and thus neither constitutes punishment nor imposes a penalty. See, e.g. , People v. Harmon , 2013 IL App (2d) 120439 , 26 N.E. 3d 344; People v. Johnson , 2013 I L App (5th ) 110112, 998 N.E. 2d
185. While the cases which the defendant relies upon may prohibit the imposition of the harshest penalties upon juveniles in certain circumstances, they do not justify departure from the principle that juve niles have no constitutional or common law right to adjudication in juvenile court. See Patterson , 2014 IL 115102, ¶¶ 104

- 06, 25 N.E.3d
526 ; Harmon , 2013 I L A pp (2d) 120439, ¶¶ 59

- 62 , 26 N.E.3d 344

. We, too, recognize
and share our Illinois Supreme Court 's concern over the absence of any judicial discretion with respect to the automatic juvenile transfer provision, given the possible effect of the unique qualities and characteristics of youth on a juvenile's judgment and actions. See
Patterson , 2014 IL 1 15102, ¶ 111, 25 N.E.3d 526

. Until the legislature responds,12 however, and reevaluates the automatic transfer provision in light of current scientific and sociological evidence indicating a need for the exercise of judicial discretion in determining the appropriate setting for proceeding in these types of juvenile cases, we are bound to follo w the law as it exists today. ¶ 22 For hi s third point on a ppeal, the def end ant contends his sentence is excessive given that he just turned 17 years old, his lack of prio r criminal history, his s econdary role in the offense where he was not the mastermind, and his strong potential for rehabilitation

. The d efendant further asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel agree d with the S tate to a m a xi m um s entence of 60 years, failed to provide any mitigating evidence, advised the defendant not to give a statement in allocution, and failed to file a motion to rec onsider sentence on his behalf. The d ef end ant also believes the trial court e r red in simply ad o pting the parties ' agreed

- upon recommendation of 60 years when the defendant had not pled guilty. The d ef en dant forg e ts , however, that he was charged with a murder so heinous that he was eligible for natural life in prison (see 730 ILCS 5/5

- 8

- 1 (West 201 0 ) ) , and notice was given of the
State' s intention to seek just such a sentence. In fact, the defendant was charged with numerous other offenses, including multiple counts of murder, aggravated kidnapping, home invasion, resid e ntial burglary , and concealment of a homicidal death. Many of
the s e charges require d mandatory consecutive sentences. The d ef en d a nt could have received natural life for murder plus as much as 75 years for aggravated kidnapping and home invasion

. One of the ben e fits th e def en dant received in exchange f o r his agreement to a stipulate d bench trial was the State' s agreement to only seek a prison sentence of 6013 years for Sidnee' s murder and dismissal of all other charges which were mandatorily consecutive

. A sentence withi n the s tatutory limits for an offense will only be deemed excessive and the result of an abuse of discretion when the sentence is greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law, or manifestly disprop ortionate to the nature of the offense. See, e.g. , People v. Stacey , 193 I ll. 2d 203, 209

- 10 , 737 N.E.2d 626, 629 (2000). Here, the trial court considered all the facts before sentencing the defendant to 60 years, a sentence which was a major reduction in the sentence the defendant would have been likely to serve should he have been convicted on the other counts with which he was originally charged. Given the circumstances, the d efendant' s sentence was well within the spirit of the law. See People v. Fern , 189 Ill. 2d 48, 53

- 54, 723 N.E.2d 207, 20 9

- 10 (1999). ¶ 23 The d ef en d a nt also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his sentencing. After the defendant' s motion to suppress his confession was denied, the defendant and his attorney decided to enter into a stipulated bench trial. A stipulated bench trial is a legal fiction created solely to give the defendants the benefit and convenience of a guilty plea while avoidin g the consequences of waiver or forfeitu re. Gonzalez , 313 Ill. App. 3d at 617, 730 N.E.2d at 544; People v. Cunningham , 286 Ill. App. 3d 346, 348 , 676 N.E.2d 998, 1000 (1997) . One of the huge benefits the defendant received in exchange for his agreement to a stipulated bench trial was the Stat e ' s agreement to seek only 60 years in prison for Sidnee's murder, instead of life, as well as the dismissal of all other charges against him. Contrary to the defendant' s assertions, defense counsel negotiated the dismissal of numerous counts and allowed the def end ant14 to escape a natural

- life

- plus sentence. Purs ui ng the dismissal of numerous charges against the defendant and obtaining a lesser sent en ce, even though a length y one, is valid trial strategy. Defense counsel ' s s trategic choices , made after in vest i g a tion o f the law and the facts , are unassailable in this instance

. See People v. Ramsey , 239 Il l. 2d 342, 433 , 942 N.E.2d 1168, 1218 (2010). ¶ 24 For his final point on appeal, the defendant argues he was required to register as a sex offender even though the sentencing cou rt never determined that Sidnee' s murder was sexually motivated. See People v. Black , 394 Ill. App. 3d 935, 942 , 917 N.E.2d 114, 120 (2009). The d efendant admits though that , while he is not required to register under Sex Offende r Registration Act (SORA) (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq
. (West 2010) ), he will be required to register under the Child Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act (VOYRA) (730 ILCS 154/1 et seq
. (West 2010) ) . See People v. Craig , 374 Ill. App. 3 d 375, 377 , 871 N.E.2d 273, 275 (2007)

. The d efendant is correct that the sentencing co urt made no finding that Sidnee' s murder was sexually motivated. He is also correct that he should be required to register under VOYRA if not under SORA. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the sentencing court for a determination as to whether the offense was sexually motivated and under which provision the defendant is required to register. See Black , 394 Ill. App. 3d at 942

- 43, 917 N.E.2d at 120; 730 ILCS 154/86 ( West 2010). ¶ 25 For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Perry County but remand th is cause for the trial court' s determination as to whether the

m urder was sexually motivated.15 ¶ 26 Affirmed in part and remanded in part.2015 IL App (5th) 120401 NO. 5

- 12

- 0401
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________________ _____________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff

- Appellee, ) Perry County. ) v. ) No. 1 0

- CF

- 82 ) JAMES GLAZIER, ) Honorable ) James W. Campanella, Defendant

- Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Rule 23 Order Filed: July 16, 2015 Motion to Publish Granted: August 20 , 2015 Opinion Filed: August 20 , 2015

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Justices: Honorable Judy L. Cates, P.J. Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J., and Honorable Melissa A. Chapman, J., Concur

________________________________________________________________________ _____________ Attorneys Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, Deputy for Defender, Jean Park, Assistant Ap pellate Defender, Office of the State Appellant Appellate Defender, First Judicial District, 203 N. LaSalle, 24th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601

________________________________________________________________________ _____________ Attorneys Hon. David Stan ton, State's Attorney, Perry County Courthouse , P.O. Box for 377, Pinckneyville, IL 62274; Patrick Delfino, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Appellee Deputy Director, Sharon Shanahan, Staff Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Fifth District Office, 730 E. Illinois Highway 15, Suite 2, P.O. Box 2249, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864

_____________________________________________________________________________________