Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

04/14/94 PEOPLE STATE ILLINOIS v. JERONIMO CALDERON

April 14, 1994

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JERONIMO CALDERON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY. HONORABLE RICHARD E. NEVILLE, PRESIDING.

Released for Publication June 7, 1994.

Johnson, Cahill, Theis

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Johnson

JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court:

After a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Jeronimo Calderon, was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 12-14(a)(2)) and criminal sexual assault (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 12-13(a)(3)). He was sentenced to an 8-year term in the Illinois Department of Corrections for aggravated criminal sexual assault, the other conviction merging.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) he was not charged within the applicable statute of limitations; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence; and (4) his impregnation of his daughter was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

We affirm.

The following relevant facts were adduced at trial. Defendant began to have sexual relations with his daughter, M.C., when she was 14 years old and these relations continued for approximately 5 years. M.C. testified that defendant is the father of her daughter, V.C., who was born on June 29, 1988, when M.C. was 17 years old.

On April 29, 1991, Officer Jose Reyes found defendant hiding in a bedroom closet in the family home while M.C. was present, in violation of a court order prohibiting defendant's presence in the house. Officer Reyes arrested defendant and took him to the police station. At the station, defendant gave a written statement to police and to Assistant State's Attorney Roger Pena, stating that he had a sexual relationship with M.C. and that he was the father and the grandfather of her daughter, V.C. That same day, the officer interviewed M.C. who stated that defendant was the father of her child.

At the Conclusion of trial, defendant was convicted of the criminal sexual assault and the aggravated criminal sexual assault of M.C. He was subsequently sentenced to an 8-year term of imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections. He appeals.

Initially, defendant posits that the charges regarding M.C. were not brought within the applicable statute of limitations.

Defendant predicates his argument on section 3-6(c) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 3-6(c)). The pertinent language provides: "A prosecution for any offense involving sexual conduct or sexual penetration * * * where the victim and defendant are family members, * * * may be commenced within one year of the victim attaining the age of 18 years." Accordingly, he postulates that as his most recent act of sexual intercourse with M.C. occurred when she was 15 years old and as he was not charged with an offense respecting his conduct toward M.C. until she was 20 years old, the charges were not properly brought against him.

As a introductory note, this assertion is unsupported by the record. A review of the record demonstrates that defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with his daughter after she was 15 years old. Most indicative of this fact is defendant's acknowledgement that he is the father of M.C.'s daughter, V.C., who was born on June 29, 1988, when M.C. was 17 years old.

Regarding the statute of limitations, defendant suggests that section 3-6(c) of the Criminal Code of 1961 somehow limits the time period in which an action may be brought against him for aggravated criminal sexual assault. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.