Under Illinois’ sweeping criminal justice reform known as the SAFE-T Act, Illinois courts cannot consider some prior juvenile crimes when sentencing people convicted of other crimes later as adults, even if the person was convicted under the prior law, a divided Illinois Supreme Court has ruled.
On Oct. 20, the four Democratic justices on the state high court ruled a Cook County judge had wrongly sentenced a man to six years in prison for possession of a stolen car, after prosecutors had noted the man had been convicted as a teenager of residential burglary and another, earlier charge of possession of a stolen car.
Illinois Supreme Court Justice David Overstreet
| Illinoiscourts.gov
The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Anne M. Burke, who is retiring from the court later this year. She was joined by her fellow Democrats on the court, justices Mary Jane Theis, P. Scott Neville and Robert L. Carter.
Two of the court’s Republican justices dissented. Justice David Overstreet authored the dissent. He was joined by Justice Michael J. Burke, no relation to the chief justice. Michael Burke, of DuPage County, is seeking election to the court this fall in Illinois’ Third Judicial District.
The Third District includes the counties of DuPage, Will, Kankakee, Grundy, Iroquois, LaSalle and Bureau.
The case before the state high court centered on the sentencing of Denzal Stewart. In 2017, Stewart was convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. According to the decision, Stewart committed the offense for which he was convicted in 2016, at the age of 20.
The offense would ordinarily be considered a Class 2 felony. But during the sentencing hearing, prosecutors introduced evidence of prior criminal activity by Stewart, including a 2013 residential burglary conviction and a 2014 conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle. Both of the convictions occurred when Stewart was considered a juvenile.
Taking those convictions into account, the judge sentenced Stewart under the guidelines for Class X felonies, and ordered him imprisoned for the statutory minimum of six years, plus three years of supervised release.
That sentence was overturned on appeal. Appellate justices in the First District Court of Appeals in Chicago sided with Stewart’s lawyers, finding changes to the state’s juvenile criminal code meant the 2013 burglary conviction can’t be held against him for sentencing now.
The appellate judges pointed to language in the law which said the residential burglary “had it been committed under the laws in effect on August 13, 2016, would have been resolved through (juvenile) delinquency proceedings,” rather than in felony criminal court. They interpreted that language to mean was not a “qualifying offense” to enhance Stewart’s sentence as a repeat offender.
Stewart’s lawyers further argued that applying the Class X sentencing guidelines to Stewart, for the 2013 juvenile offense, would violate his constitutional rights.
The state appealed that ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.
However, the high court majority said the appellate judges were correct.
They said the question in the case is precise: “Whether the legislature intended a prior felony conviction to be a qualifying offense for Class X sentencing if the same offense would have resulted in a juvenile adjudication had it been committed on the date of the present offense.”
The justices said the statute itself doesn’t answer that question. So, instead, they looked to the newly enacted criminal justice reform, commonly known as the SAFE-T Act.
That law has been subject to a barrage of criticism since the state’s Democrat-dominated state legislature passed it during the overnight hours, with virtually no debate in January 2021. The law became effective in July 2021. However, some of its most controversial provisions are still scheduled to take effect in January 2023, when the state is poised to abolish cash bail.
Lawsuits are pending to block those provisions from taking effect.
However, the law also contained language touching on virtually every aspect of criminal justice enforcement. Among those provisions was language forbidding judges to take into consideration offenses committed prior to the age of 21 when sentencing people for crimes committed after the age of 21.
The majority said this provision led them to conclude it was the intent of the Democratic majority in Springfield to ensure people like Stewart don’t face enhanced sentences for crimes they committed while juveniles, even if those crimes were committed before the laws were changed.
In dissent, Overstreet and Burke said the Supreme Court majority overreached in its reasoning by “reframing the question into a convoluted hypothetical,” leading to a conclusion that is against the “plain language” of the law.
They said the law governing Class X sentencing rules states clearly that Stewart should have been sentenced under Class X rules, as he was convicted of a crime after twice being convicted of similar offenses in the past.
Under the law, Overstreet and Burke wrote, “offense elements are the only considerations in determining whether the prior offense qualifies for Class X sentencing, and defendant’s age is not one of those elements.”
Further, Overstreet and Burke noted nothing about the SAFE-T Act is a “clarification” of existing law. Rather, that kind of comprehensive reform represents a wholesale change to the state’s criminal justice code, creating a clear distinction between crimes committed then and crimes for which people face trial and sentencing now and in the future.
They noted the text of the SAFE-T Act should be read to establish “that defendant’s age was irrelevant until the amendment became effective on July 21, 2021, which is four years after defendant was sentenced in this case.”
They said state lawmakers changed the law to explicitly bar judges from considering even similar forcible felonies committed before someone was age 21 when sentencing following convictions for crimes committed after the age of 21.
New Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lisa Holder White took no part in the decision, as she came on the court after arguments were held.