Opinion ID: 2206444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mack/Apprendi

Text: The elements instruction and the signed verdict form do not conflict. Consequently, we need not address defendant's Mack argument, which is premised upon the existence of that conflict. And ordinarily, that would be the case with the appellate court's Apprendi analysis, as well. In this case, however, that analysis contains an error so fundamental that we are compelled to correct it rather than risk its repetition. According to the appellate court, Apprendi dealt directly with the requirement of a verdict form that demonstrates a jury's determination of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of each element of an offense. 364 Ill.App.3d at 929, 302 Ill.Dec. 168, 848 N.E.2d 168. Not surprisingly, the appellate court does not provide any citation for this unprecedented description of Apprendi. This is most likely because Apprendi does not speak in any way to the structure of a verdict form, let alone mandate a verdict form that demonstrates a jury's determination of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of each element of an offense. On the contrary, Apprendi merely requires the State to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt all facts underlying the sentence imposed on the defendant. Hill v. Cowan, 202 Ill.2d 151, 158, 269 Ill.Dec. 875, 781 N.E.2d 1065 (2002). The core holding of Apprendi is this: Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63, 147 L.Ed.2d at 455. Both of these things occurred in this case. All of the facts that permit robbery to be charged as a Class 1 felony, including the age of the victim, were submitted to the jury. And defendant concedes that the State proved all of those elements to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi requires nothing more.