FIFTH DIVISION

									  December 31, 2001 

No. 1-99-1888

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

		Plaintiff-Appellee,

	v.

LUIS VASQUEZ,

		Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County

Honorable

Colleen McSweeney-

Moore,

Judge Presiding.

	JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the court:

	Defendant, Luis Vasquez, was charged by indictment with first degree murder, armed robbery and aggravated battery.  Following a

jury trial defendant was found guilty of armed robbery and

acquitted of the other charges.  After the verdict, the State moved

to have defendant, who was 16 at the time of the offense, sentenced

as an adult.  The trial court granted the motion and defendant was

sentenced to a term of 30 years' imprisonment in the Illinois

Department of Corrections.  Defendant now timely appeals.

	On appeal defendant argues that his case must be remanded for

a new sentencing hearing where: (1) the sentencing statute under

which defendant was charged as an adult is unconstitutional as

being violative of the single subject rule; (2) the trial court

abused its discretion in failing to take into account all statutory

factors enumerated in the sentencing statute; and (3) defendant's

sentence was disparate to that of his codefendants.	

I.  Background

	The pertinent facts of the case involve the events that took

place during the evening hours of January 24, 1997.  Assistant

State's Attorney Kari Mason testified at trial that she was

assigned to investigate the first degree murder and armed robbery

of Joaquin Diaz.  Mason stated that after speaking with detectives

assigned to the case, she met with the sixteen-year-old defendant

at Area 1 police headquarters on January 27, 1997.  Defendant's

mother was present for this interview.  After advising defendant of

his Miranda rights, defendant stated that on January 24, 1997, at 8 p.m. he was with Claudio Martinez, Anthony Saucedo and Marcos

Sanchez in a van driving around.  Defendant told Mason that while

driving they saw two members of the Party People gang, a gang which

was a rival of his gang.  Defendant stated that he was a member of

the La Raza gang.  Defendant stated that they stopped the van and

exited the vehicle looking to fight with the Party People.  

	Defendant said that as they approached the two Party People,

he noticed that there was nothing in their hands.  He said that one

of "his boys" threw a bottle at one of the Party People.  Defendant

told Mason that the person who was struck picked up the bottle and

threw it back, striking defendant in the eye.  Defendant stated

that he then approached the person who threw the bottle at him and

punched him in the head.  He said that he saw his friend Anthony

Saucedo, also know as T-Bone, with a stick or pipe.  Mason

testified that at that point defendant's mother told defendant not to answer any more questions.  Mason also stated that she observed

defendant's left eye was bruised and cut.

	Ivan Flores testified for the State under a grant of use

immunity.  Flores testified that on January 24, 1997, he was a

member of the La Raza gang and was nicknamed "Little Popeye." 

Flores stated that defendant was also a member of La Raza on that

date and that his nickname was "Popeye."  Flores testified that he

was riding in a van on January 24, 1997, with defendant, Martinez

(nicknamed "Flaco"), Saucedo (nicknamed "T-Bone"), Sanchez

(nicknamed "Pelon") and two girls, drinking beer.  Flores said that

while riding in the van someone yelled there were some Party

People.  Flores stated that the van stopped and Pelon, T-Bone,

Flaco and Popeye got out of the van.  Flores testified he saw a

bunch of people fighting and beating each other, but he was unable

to identify each person's exact activity.  Flores testified that he

saw one of the four La Raza gang members with a pipe striking one

of the Party People, but he could not identify which of the four it

was.  

	Assistant State's Attorney John Maher then testified that on

January 26 he obtained a written statement from Flores.  Flores'

statement provided a more detailed version of the incident.  Maher

testified that Flores told him that Martinez exited the van with a

beer bottle.  Flores stated Saucedo had a pipe in the van, but

Sanchez actually exited the vehicle with that pipe.  Maher also

testified that Flores told him that one of the Party People, the one who was hit with the bottle, was "getting his ass kicked by

three or four La Raza guys" while the other Party People member had

run away.  Flores told Maher that Martinez hit one of the two mem

over the head with a bottle.  Additionally, Flores told Maher that

defendant came back to the van wearing the leather coat of the boy

whom everyone was "stomping."  Maher stated that Flores read the

statement, reviewed it, made corrections and signed every page.

	Urbano Alvarez testified, through the assistance of an

interpreter, that on January 24, 1997, at around 8 p.m., he left

his house with Joaquin Diaz headed for Diaz's house on Washtenaw

Avenue.  Alvarez stated that both he and Diaz were wearing leather

jackets that evening.  Alvarez testified that while crossing 60th

Street, he noticed a group of people, all dressed in black, walking

toward them.  Alvarez said he turned around and saw a van behind

them.  Alvarez stated that one of the people in the group, whom he

later identified as Martinez, pulled off his hood, said "La Raza --

----------" and hit Diaz with a beer bottle.  Alvarez stated that

a different person, whom he later identified as Saucedo, had a

metal or wood pipe.  Alvarez stated that while he was held by the

arm, he saw about four people beating Diaz, who was lying on the

ground.  Alvarez testified that he managed to free himself and run

toward Diaz's home to get help from Alfredo Monroy and James

Monroy, Diaz's cousins.  Alvarez stated that the group was still

beating Diaz when he left.  Alvarez said that when he returned,

Diaz was lying on the opposite side of the street covered in blood.

	Jamie Monroy testified that on January 24, 1997, Urbano came

to his house on Washtenaw StreetAvenue, yelling that Diaz was being

beaten.  Jamie was living at that house with his brother Alfredo,

Diaz and two friends.  Jamie testified that as he left the house,

shortly after Urbano and Alfredo, he saw a blue van parked in front

of his house.  Jamie stated that he walked slowly past the van and

then ran to where Diaz was lying on the ground.  Jamie testified

that Diaz was covered in blood and that when he put his hands

behind Diaz's head he felt that the back of Diaz's head was open. 

	Alfredo Monroy testified that after Urbano came to the house

he ran to where Diaz was being beaten.  Alfredo testified that he

saw Diaz on the ground and another "guy" beating him in the chest

and face.  Alfredo said he yelled and the "guy" pulled Diaz's

jacket off and ran through a passage way between two houses. 

Alfredo later identified Sanchez in a lineup as the person still on

top of Diaz as they approached. 

	Dr. Mitra Kalelkar, assistant chief medical examiner,

testified that on January 26, 1997, she performed an autopsy on

Joaquin Diaz.  Dr. Kalelkar testified regarding the extensive

injuries to Diaz's head.  Dr. Kalelkar noted very severe

hemorrhages underneath the scalp, a fractured and depressed skull

cap and a severely contused brain.  In Dr. Kalelkar's opinion,

these injuries were consistent with being struck with a metal pipe. 

Dr. Kalelkar opined that Diaz died as a result of extensive cranial

cerebral injuries.

	Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial.  Defendant

admitted that in January of 1997 he was a member of the La Raza

gang.  Defendant testified that on January 24, 1997, he was with T-

Bone, Flaco, Pelon, Little Popeye, and two girls "drinking and

smoking weed" in a van.  Defendant stated that while driving around

in the area of 59th and Washtenaw, he and Flaco (Martinez) exited

the van at a friend's house.  Defendant testified that at that

point they saw two Party People walking towards them.  Defendant

admitted that 59th and Washtenaw was Party People territory and

that the Party People gang was at war with the La Raza gang. 

Defendant stated that when they approached the Party People, a fist

fight began.  Defendant stated he was hit with a beer bottle near

his eyebrow.  Defendant testified that at that point he returned to

the van and left Martinez still fighting.  He saw T-Bone (Saucedo)

exit the van with a pipe.  Defendant testified that he remained in

the van until the fight was over.  Defendant denied that they were

driving in the area looking to fight with Party People.  Defendant

admitted that he was arrested and taken to Area 1 with Martinez,

Sanchez and Flores on January 25 but denied ever speaking to any

police officers while there.

	In rebuttal, Officer Frank Valdez testified that he spoke with

the defendant on January 26th at Area 1.  Valdez stated that the

defendant told him that he was home all day on January 24th under

home confinement.  

	At the close of all the evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of the armed robbery of Joaquin Diaz but

not guilty of the first degree murder of Diaz and not guilty of the

aggravated battery of Alvarez.  The State subsequently filed a 

motion to have the defendant sentenced as an adult pursuant to

section 5-4-(6)(c)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5-

4(6)(c)(ii) (West 1996)).  On May 5, 1999, the motion was granted

and the case proceeded to sentencing.  

	During sentencing, the State called Officer Bill Quinn.  Quinn

testified that on January 23, 1996, in responding to a gang

disturbance call, he arrested defendant, along with 11 others, for

underage drinking.  A handgun, thrown to the floor by Michael

Reyes, was recovered at the scene.  Saucedo was arrested on that

date along with the defendant.  On the way to the police station,

defendant admitted he was a member of the La Raza gang.

	Officer Bochnak testified that he arrested defendant on April

7, 1996, for assault.  The victim informed officers that he and

defendant got into a verbal altercation when defendant pointed a

handgun at the victim.  Defendant admitted that he was a member of

the La Raza gang. 

	Officer John C. Haggerty testified that on November 22, 1996,

he responded to a battery call at approximately 8:00 p.m.  The

victim informed Haggerty that about five La Raza gang members

approached him and began to beat him.  The victim identified both

defendant and Saucedo as two of the people who beat him.  Defendant

again admitted that he was a member of the La Raza gang.

	Defendant did not present any evidence in mitigation.  The

trial court sentenced the defendant to 30 years' imprisonment in

the Illinois Department of Corrections.  Defendant's motion to

reduce or reconsider the sentence was denied.  Defendant now timely

appeals.

II.  ANALYSIS

	A.  Constitutionality of the sentencing statute

	In his opening brief, defendant argued that the amendment to

section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) was passed as part of Public Act 88-680 (eff.

January 1, 1995), known as the "Safe Neighborhoods Law" which was

subsequently struck down by our supreme court in People v. Cervantes, 189 Ill. 2d 80 (1999).  The State responded that the amendment was actually passed in Public Act 88-239.  Defendant

concedes this issue for the purposes of appeal and therefore, we

deem it waived for review.

	B.  Abuse of discretion

	Defendant argues that his sentence must be remanded for a new

hearing on his eligibility for sentencing as an adult where the

trial court abused its discretion.  In this case, although

defendant was only 16 years old at the time of the offense, he was

charged as an adult pursuant to section 5-4(6)(a), which provided:

	"The definition of delinquent minor under Section 5-3 of

this Act shall not apply to any minor who at the time of

the offense was at least 15 years of age and who is

charged with first degree murder * * *. These charges and

all other charges arising out of the same incident shall

be prosecuted under the Criminal Code of 1961."  705 ILCS 405/5-4(6)(a) (West 1992)

Although defendant was acquitted of first degree murder, the

defendant was convicted of armed robbery.  Therefore, defendant was

sentenced under section 5-4(6)(c)(ii), which provided:

	"(ii) If after trial or plea the minor is only convicted

of an offense not covered by paragraph (a) of this

subsection (6), the conviction shall not invalidate the

verdict or the prosecution of the minor under the

criminal laws of the State; however, unless the State

requests a hearing for the purpose of sentencing the

minor under Chapter V of the Unified Code of Correction,

the Court must proceed under Sections 5-22 and 5-23 of

this Act.  Should the State request a hearing it must do

so by written motion within 10 days following the entry

of a finding or the return of a verdict.  Reasonable

notice of the motion shall be served upon the minor or

his counsel.  If the motion is made by the State, the

court shall conduct a hearing to determine if the request

should be granted.  In making its determination on the

motion, the court shall consider among other matters: (a)

whether there is evidence that the offense was committed

in an aggressive and premeditated manner; (b) the age of

the minor; (c) the previous history of the minor; (d)

whether there are facilities particularly available to

the Juvenile Court or the Department of Corrections,

Juvenile Division, for the treatment and rehabilitation

of the minor; (e) whether the best interest of the minor

and the security of the public require sentencing under

Chapter V of the Unified Code of Corrections; and (f)

whether the minor possessed a deadly weapon when

committing the offense."  705 ILCS 405/5-4(6)(c)(ii)

(West 1996).

	We note that section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) was amended effective

January 1, 1994.  Prior to that date, section 5-4(6)(c)(ii)

required the trial court to sentence the defendant to the juvenile

division of the Department of Corrections when the defendant was

found not guilty of murder.  Defendant maintains that the trial

court failed to take all statutorily enumerated factors into

account when determining whether he should be sentenced as an adult or transferred back to juvenile court for a dispositional hearing.

	The trial court is bound to consider the specific criteria set

forth in the Junvenile Court Act.  People v. Ollins, 231 Ill. App. 3d 243, 247, 595 N.E.2d 1295 (1992).  However, no one factor is

determinative nor must each factor be given equal weight.  People v. Martin, 285 Ill. App. 3d 623, 631, 674 N.E.2d 90 (1996).  Not all of the statutory criteria must be resolved against the minor to

justify treating him as an adult.  See People v. Sistrunk, 259 Ill. App. 3d 40, 48, 630 N.E.2d 1213 (1994). "Where the record shows

that the [trial] court considered all the factors and its

determination is not an abuse of discretion, then the ruling will

be affirmed on appeal."  People v. Martin, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 631.

	The record in this case shows that the State filed a motion

requesting a hearing for the purpose of sentencing the defendant as

an adult. The defense requested and received a 30-day continuance

to prepare a response to the State's motion.  The trial court then

conducted a hearing and reviewed the evidence relating to the

statutory factors.  Defendant only takes issue with the trial

court's evaluation of the fourth and fifth factors provided in the

statute.  As the trial court properly evaluated and applied the

statutory factors, we find that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing the defendant as an adult. 

	We first note that defendant maintains that the statutory

factors in section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) to be considered in a "transfer

back" hearing are "nearly identical to the factors the juvenile court must consider in making a determination whether to transfer

a juvenile to the adult court" under 5-4(3)(a).  Defendant

concludes, therefore, that the factors should be evaluated in

precisely the same manner.  However, defendant cites no case law

for the proposition that the factors are to be analyzed in such a

manner. 

	Defendant cites People v. Brown, 301 Ill. App. 3d 995, 1008, 705 N.E.2d 162 (1998), which stated: 

	"By allowing the trial court discretion to determine

whether to transfer the juvenile back to juvenile court,

the trial court is afforded the opportunity to balance

the interests of the community and the minor in reaching

a sentencing determination, just as it had an opportunity

to balance the interests in reaching a prosecutorial

determination.  Further, the trial court should use the

same guidelines provided in section 5-4(3)(b) in reaching

a decision on whether to transfer the juvenile." 

However, the defendant in Brown was 14 at the time of the offense and therefore was not subject to the mandatory transfer provision

in section 5-4(6)(a).  

	The State points out that in cases involving mandatory

transfer, our supreme court has held: "[t]he legislature itself

balanced the competing interests of minor offenders and society

where it is alleged that a minor has committed 'murder, [or]

aggravated criminal sexual assault' and 'was at least 15 years of

age' at the time of the alleged offense. [Citation.]  Under these circumstances, the legislature struck the balance in favor of

societal security by vesting exclusive jurisdiction over these

alleged juvenile offenders within the criminal court."  People v. Clark, 119 Ill. 2d at 13.  Therefore, while the factors may be evaluated similarly, unlike the straight balancing between the

interests of the minor and society when the defendant is under 15

years of age in section 5-4(3)(a), when a minor is mandatorily

transferred to criminal court pursuant to section 5-4(6)(c)(ii), a

balancing has in essence already occurred, weighing in favor of

protecting society.  

	We note that there are subtle differences in the language of

the two statutes.  While the fourth factor under section 5-4(3)(b)

requires the court to consider whether "there are facilities

particularly available to the Juvenile Court for the treatment and

rehabilitation of the minor" (705 ILCS 405/5-4(3)(b) (West 1996))

the fourth factor under section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) requires the court to

consider whether "there are facilities particularly available to

the Juvenile Court or the Department of Corrections, Juvenile

Division, for the treatment and rehabilitation of the minor" (705

ILCS 405/5-4(6)(c)(ii) (West 1996)).  Likewise, the fifth factor

under section 5-4(3)(b) requires the court to consider whether "the

best interest of the minor and the security of the public may

require that the minor continue in custody or under supervision for

a period extending beyond his minority" (705 ILCS 405/5-4(3)(b)

(West 1996)) where the fifth factor under section 5-4(6)(c)(ii)

asks whether "the best interest of the minor and the security of

the public require sentencing under Chapter V of the Unified Code

of Corrections" (705 ILCS 405/5-4(6)(c)(ii) (West 1996)).

	Even if we were to accept defendant's argument that trial

courts should consider the factors in section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) in the

same manner as the factors in section 5-4(4)(3), we note that

section 5-4(4)(3.3)(a) provides: 

	"If the State's Attorney files a motion under subsection

(3)(a) to permit prosecution under the criminal laws and

the petition alleges the commission by a minor 15 years

of age or older of: (i) a Class X felony other than armed

violence***and the State's Attorney's motion to transfer

the case alleges that the offense committed is in

furtherance of the criminal activities of an organized

gang***and, if the juvenile judge designated to hear and

determine motions to transfer a case for prosecution in

the criminal court determines that there is probable

cause to believe that the allegations in the petition and

motion are true, there is a rebuttable presumption that

the minor is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt

with under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, and that,

except as provided in paragraph (b), the case should be

transferred to the criminal court."  705 ILCS 405/5-

4(3.3)(a) (West 1996).

In the instant case, it is clear that the attack on Diaz was

committed in furtherance of the criminal activities of defendant's

gang.  Consequently, even if we were to apply the factors of

section 5-4(3.3)(a), we would be compelled to find that defendant

has failed to rebut the presumption that he is not a fit and proper

subject to be dealt with under the Juvenile Court Act.  

	Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously evaluated

the fourth factor under the statute because, in sentencing

defendant, the court did not specifically refer to the defendant's

exposure to juvenile programs.  The record reveals that the trial

court, at the conclusion of the hearing on the State's section 5-

4(6)(c)(ii) motion, stated:

	"Based on the factors enumerated in the statute, I find

that this crime, under subsection A, was committed in an

aggressive and premeditated manner.  The evidence before

me suggested that the defendant joined with his fellow

gang members in a specific mission to seek out and harm

rival gang members.  The aggressiveness of the crime is

shown by the numbers of the defendant and his gang

members against the victim in this case, and the deadly

weapon that was used to kill the victim.  The defendant

was 16 at the time of the offense.  The only evidence

before me at this juncture is a prior aggravated assault

finding as a juvenile.  Based on the actions of the

defendant and his accountability for the actions of his

fellow co-defendants, his rehabilitative potential is

certainly questionable.  Based on his actions, even at

his young age, certainly the public needs to be protected

from him.  And the defendant was accountable for a deadly

weapon being possessed and used to beat to death the

victim in this case.  For all these reasons, I find that

the defendant shall be sentenced as an adult under the

Unified Code of Corrections Chapter 5."

  	Although defendant is correct in stating that the trial judge did not specifically mention the availability of treatment or

rehabilitation services in juvenile court or the juvenile division

of the Illinois Department of Corrections, that alone is not conclusive proof that the trial judge did not evaluate this factor. 

See People v. Luckett, 295 Ill. App. 3d 342, 348, 692 N.E.2d 1345 (1998).  As the court in Luckett noted, the fourth factor was mentioned to the trial judge in Luckett and in th e caseby both the prosecutor and the defense

counsel.  

	In the case at bar, defense counsel addressed the fourth

factor stating "there's been no evidence that he is incapable under

D of being held in a particular juvenile Department of Corrections. 

There's been no evidence to suggest that this young man cannot go

to the juvenile Department of Corrections or that he or his

behavior is somehow indicative of an individual that has to be

housed in an adult facility."  In the written section 5-4(6)(c)(ii)

motion, the State addressed the fourth factor,  stating "given the

fact that defendant is now 18 years old, the State does not believe

the defendant requires a specific or a particular juvenile

facility."  Additionally, the prosecution notified the trial court

in its section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) motion that defendant was on juvenile

probation for a prior aggravated assault when he committed the

instant offense and listed defendant's numerous contacts with the

law.  Some of those prior contacts involved codefendants in this

particular case.  The trial court's comment regarding its

skepticism of defendant's rehabilitative potential was based upon

the information provided by both defense counsel and the State.  In

considering defendant's continued criminal actions, "even at his

young age," the court determined defendant's proper place remained in the criminal court.  This determination was made in a manner

consistent with this court's holding in People v. Luckett, 295 Ill. App. 3d 342, 348, 692 N.E.2d 1345 (1998).

	In the instant case, the defendant makes the additional

argument that the trial court could not properly consider whether

defendant was amenable to treatment where the record does not

reflect that the court was informed as to whether defendant was

ever in any rehabilitation programs unique to the juvenile court or

the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections.  However,

the fourth factor requires the trial court to consider "whether

there are facilities particularly available to the Juvenile Court or the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, for the

treatment and rehabilitation of the minor." (Emphasis added.) 705

ILCS 405/5-4(6)(c)(ii) (West 1996). Defendant's contention on

appeal that a sentencing court cannot comply with the fourth factor

unless it is aware of the defendant's prior participation, if any,

in rehabilitation programs is simply belied by the plain language

of the statute.

	Defendant also argues that the trial court erroneously

evaluated whether the best interest of the minor and the security

of the public required sentencing defendant as an adult.  During

the section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) hearing, the court explicitly stated,

"based on his actions, even at a young age, certainly the public

needs to be protected from him."  The court further stated that

"defendant was accountable for a deadly weapon being possessed and used to beat to death the victim in this case."  The prosecutor

argued that "the acts of this defendant clearly show that he has to

be sentenced as an adult and not to think of the best interest of

the defendant because obviously he, under the theory of

accountability, is responsible for every single harm that was done

to our victim and the taking of a leather jacket is what the jury

found him guilty of."  The prosecutor briefly reminded the court of

the extensive injuries the young victim suffered and the fact that

defendant is a self-admitted gang member.  The State's motion

indicated that the prior criminal history of the defendant

supported sentencing him as an adult to protect the public.  

	Although defendant insists that the fifth factor requires a

court to take into account the potential time in prison a juvenile

will face, defendant cites to cases that evaluate the statutory

factors used in a section 5-4(3)(a) determination.  See People v. Clark, 119 Ill. 2d 1, 518 N.E.2d 138; see also People v. D.B., 202 Ill. App. 3d 194, 559 N.E.2d 873 (1990).  Cases interpreting the

factors enumerated in section 5-4(6)(c)(ii), however, have not

required the same.  The court in Luckett merely stated, when reviewing the trial court's section 5-4(6)(c)(ii) determination,

"[a]s far as the fifth factor, the defendant's actions clearly

indicate a need to protect the public by sentencing the defendant

as an adult."  People v. Luckett, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 348.  Further, as recently noted by our supreme court in People v. Morgan, Nos. 88508, 88513 cons., (October 18, 2001):

	"[I]t is worth noting that in a later version of the Act,

the legislature amended the statute on discretionary

transfers to add: 'In considering these factors, the

court shall give greater weight to the seriousness of the alleged offense and the minor's prior record of delinquency than to the other factors listed in this

subsection.' (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/5-805 (West

2000)."  Morgan, slip. op. at 12.

	Importantly, in a "transfer back" hearing, the decision

whether to sentence defendant as an adult is made by the same court

that will ultimately sentence the defendant.  In making a

determination pursuant to section 5-4(3)(a), the juvenile court is

considering mere allegations.  In making a determination pursuant

to section 5-4(6)(c)(ii), the criminal court is considering the

proper disposition of a defendant's case when he has been convicted

after a trial.  In the instant case, immediately prior to trial,

the court advised defendant of the potential sentences he faced. 

In sentencing a defendant as an adult to a specific term of years,

the criminal court judge is obviously taking into account not only

the term of years the defendant potentially faces, but also the

term of years he or she will actually impose.  Based upon the record, we find that the trial court properly weighed the fifth

factor in its determination as well.

	Defendant does not contend that the trial court improperly

weighed the other four factors under section 5-4(6)(c)(ii): the

offense could not have been committed in a more aggressive manner,

defendant was 16 at the time of the offense and 18 at the time of

sentencing, the previous history of the defendant, and the

defendant's codefendants used a deadly weapon to murder the unarmed victim.  For all the above reasons, we hold that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the defendant

should be sentenced as an adult.

	C.  Disparate sentence              

	Defendant also argues that his sentence should be reduced or

his cause remanded where defendant's sentence was disparate to his

codefendants' sentences.  Specifically, defendant maintains that

while he was sentenced to 30 years in prison for armed robbery, his

codefendants were sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment for first

degree murder and a consecutive 6-year sentence for armed robbery. 

Although his sentence was nearly equivalent to that of his

codefendants, defendant maintains that the sentences are disparate

because he was convicted of a less serious crime.  We disagree.

	Sentencing is a matter taht rests within the sound discretion

of the trial court, and therefore, if it is within the statutory

limits, a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial

judge abused that discretion.  People v. Nutall, 312 Ill. App. 3d 620, 635, 728 N.E.2d 597 (2000).  "The general rule as to the

question of whether defendant's sentence was unfairly disparate is

that arbitrary and unreasonable disparity between the sentences of

similarly situated codefendants is impermissible."  People v. Taylor, 318 Ill. App. 3d 464, 477, 742 N.E.2d 357 (2000).  A mere disparity in sentences does not, by itself, establish a violation

of fundamental fairness.  People v. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d 205, 216, 688 N.E.2d 658 (1997).  In addition, the trial court is in the

best position to determine the appropriate punishment, and its

decision is entitled to great weight and deference.  People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 53, 723 N.E.2d 207, 209 (1999); People v. Modrowski, 296 Ill. App. 3d 735, 751, 696 N.E.2d 28 (1998).

	In Taylor, this court rejected an argument virtually identical to the defendant's argument in the case at bar.  In Taylor, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 24 years on charges

of armed robbery and home invasion, and 4 years on a charge of

residential burglary.  Defendant argued that his sentence was

disproportionate where Caples, an equally culpable codefendant,

pled guilty to the more serious crime of murder and received only

a 20-year sentence.  We held that "[a] sentence imposed on a

codefendant who pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement does not

provide a valid basis of comparison to a sentence entered after

trial."  People v. Taylor, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 477, citing People v. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d at 217, 688 N.E.2d 658.  As we acknowledged: 

	"In Caballero, the supreme court found that the codefendant who pled guilty (1) acknowledged his guilt

and showed willingness to assume responsibility for his

conduct; (2) made a public trial unnecessary; and (3)

gave cooperation which resulted in the successful

prosecution of another offender engaged in equally

serious or more serious criminal conduct. [Citation.] As

a result, the supreme court found that the defendant

could not establish that the disparate treatment of

himself and his codefendant was unreasonable or

unwarranted."  People v. Taylor, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 477.

"Dispositional concessions are properly granted to defendants who plead guilty since the public interest in the effective

administration of criminal justice is served."  People v. Nutall, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 636.  

	In the case at bar, defendant was sentenced to 30 years'

imprisonment for armed robbery.  Armed robbery is a Class X

offense, carrying a sentencing range from 6 to 30 years.  720 ILCS

5/18-2 (West 1996); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3) (West 19967).  Therefore,

although it was the maximum non-extended sentence allowable,

defendant's sentence was clearly within the statutorily permissible

range.  The record establishes that the co-defendants in this case

entered into voluntary negotiated guilty pleas, whereby they plead

guilty to the offenses of first degree murder and armed robbery

with respect to Joaquin Diaz.  In exchange, the State recommended,

and the trial court imposed, consecutive sentences of 25 years for

first degree murder and 6 years for armed robbery.  The State nol-

prossedled the remaining attempted armed robbery and aggravated

battery charges with respect to victim Urbano Alvarez.  The

defendant declined the plea agreement and chose to proceed to

trial.  In this case, defendant cannot establish that his sentence

was disparate to that of his co-defendants.

	For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentence.

	Affirmed.

	CAMPBELL, P.J., and GREIMAN, J., concur.