Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County No. 99--JD--900 Honorable Elizabeth W. Sexton, Judge, Presiding.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Presiding Justice Hutchinson
The State petitioned to adjudicate respondent, Matthew M., a delinquent minor. Then, pursuant to section 5--810 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 ILCS 405/5--810 (West 2000)), the State moved to designate the proceeding as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) prosecution. The trial court granted the motion, and a jury subsequently convicted respondent of residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19--3 (West 1998)). The trial court sentenced respondent to a term of probation until he attained the age of 21. Pursuant to section 5--810 of the Act, the trial court also sentenced respondent to a four-year adult sentence of imprisonment, staying the sentence on the condition that the respondent did not violate the conditions of his juvenile probation. On appeal, respondent contends that (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass to a residence; (3) section 5--810 of the Act violates his due process rights (U.S. Const., amend. XIV; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000)); and (4) his conditional adult sentence must be vacated because his minor status disqualifies him for possible treatment under the treatment alternatives for criminal justice clients (TASC) program pursuant to section 40--5 of the Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse and Dependency Act (20 ILCS 301/40--5 (West 2000)). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On August 16, 1999, the State petitioned the trial court to adjudicate the respondent a delinquent minor. The petition alleged that on August 12, 1999, the respondent committed the offense of residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19--3 (West 1998)). Specifically, the petition alleged that respondent entered into the residence of the victim, Mary Walker, with the intent to commit a theft. At the time the State filed this petition, respondent was 16 years old.
On August 30, 1999, the State moved to designate the proceeding as an EJJ prosecution. See 705 ILCS 405/5--810 (West 2000). The State alleged that respondent was more than 13 years old at the time he committed the offense; the charged offense of residential burglary would be a felony if committed by an adult; and probable cause existed to believe that respondent committed the offense alleged in the petition. Following a hearing, the trial court found that probable cause existed to believe that the allegations in the State's delinquency petition and motion were true, thereby raising a rebuttable presumption that the proceeding should be designated as an EJJ prosecution. The trial court further found that the presumption had not been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and ordered that the proceeding be designated an EJJ prosecution.
At trial, the victim testified that during the morning of August 12, 1999, she was in her townhouse on Winchester Street in Warrenville. The victim testified that she had taken the day off of work to register her children for school. At approximately 10:30 a.m., respondent came to the victim's front door. The victim testified that she did not know respondent but recognized him as "a kid" she had seen in the neighborhood. The victim testified that respondent was not her son's friend and that respondent "jumped back" and looked "stunned" when she answered the door. Respondent asked if the victim's son was home. The victim responded that her son was in the shower. Respondent then asked the victim to tell her son that "Matt stopped by." As the victim left her townhouse that morning, she observed respondent standing with "a group of kids" in her neighbor's yard. The victim testified that, as she walked toward her car, another individual in the group asked her where her daughter was. The victim responded that her daughter was not at home.
When the victim returned to her residence later that afternoon, she found a trail of muddy footprints in her master bedroom. These footprints had not been in her bedroom when she left that morning. The victim immediately called the police. After the police arrived, the victim discovered that two men's rings, a man's watch, and $440 were missing from the armoire in the master bedroom. The victim testified that a window screen in her son's bedroom had been torn.
Officer Mark Gross responded to the victim's report. Officer Gross interviewed the victim and received a description of respondent. Officer Gross testified that the residence was "disheveled" and "in disarray."
Officer Brian Melvin testified that he was on duty on August 12, 1999. At approximately 9 p.m., while on patrol, he observed a vehicle swerving on the road. Officer Melvin effectuated a traffic stop and called for assistance. Officer Melvin testified that Natalie Stokes was sitting in driver's seat; Sam Smith was sitting in the front passenger seat; and respondent and Dandrian Jones were sitting in the backseat. Officer Melvin testified that he did not see respondent making any "furtive moves" as he looked into the car. After obtaining permission to search the car, Officer Melvin found a watch under Smith's seat. This watch matched the description of the watch that the victim reported missing. Officer Melvin then patted down respondent, Smith, and Jones. Officer Melvin recovered $186 from Smith and $200 from Jones. Officer Melvin did not find any cash in respondent's possession. The police transported respondent, Smith, and Jones to the Warrenville police station. At the station, Officer Melvin advised respondent of his rights and informed the juvenile officer that respondent was in custody.
Detective Tony Dutkovich of the Warrenville police department testified that he questioned respondent shortly after 1 a.m. on August 13, 1999. At the beginning of the interview, respondent confirmed that he had been advised of his Miranda rights and agreed to speak to Detective Dutkovich. Respondent initially denied that he was involved in a burglary at the victim's residence. Upon further questioning, respondent admitted that he had been at the scene of the burglary earlier in the day with another person. After Detective Dutkovich advised respondent that Smith was cooperating with the police, respondent said, "I went into the residence." Respondent then stated, "I didn't go into a residence in Winchester. I didn't do anything wrong." When Detective Dutkovich asked respondent why he had said that he went into the residence, respondent replied "I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't do anything."
At the conclusion of this interview, Officer Patrick Treacy of the Warrenville police department presented respondent with the written statement that Smith had given to the police. After reviewing the statement, respondent told Treacy that Smith's statement had "reversed some roles." Respondent explained that Smith went into the residence "doing the burglary" while respondent stood outside and acted as a lookout. Respondent then provided the following written statement: "Me and [Smith] went to Winchester in the morning looking for my bike. We walk [sic] around Winchester for about 20 minute[s] and [Smith] was like is that little Mike and his Mom leaving. When we saw them pull off in the car Sam said he was going to go see was the window open[.] I was like ok I'll be waiting for you out here. I guess you can say I was just like a little look out [sic]. When [Smith] came out the house he had a gold plated watch and silver ring and some money[.]"
After respondent completed his written statement, Treacy asked him if he could help the police locate the missing rings. Respondent said he did not know where the rings were. Treacy then placed respondent and Smith together in a room and provided them with a map of the victim's subdivision. Treacy asked respondent and Smith to place an "X" on the map where the police could find the rings. Treacy told them that no one would be watching and that no one would know who marked an "X" on the map. Both respondent and Smith agreed to this suggestion. Treacy then left the room for several minutes. When he returned, the map contained two "X's." Treacy did not know who placed the marks on the map. The police later found the two missing rings in the locations indicated on the map.
During the instructions conference, respondent requested the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass to a residence. Respondent argued that a reasonable jury could find that he did not have the intent to commit a theft in the victim's residence. The trial court denied the request, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the giving of the instruction. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury solely on the offense of residential burglary. The trial court also instructed the jury on the theory of accountability.
Following deliberations, the jury found respondent guilty of residential burglary. Prior to sentencing, respondent petitioned the trial court to be evaluated for possible treatment under TASC. The State did not object to the request, and the trial court ordered the evaluation. However, TASC administrators refused to perform an evaluation of respondent because he was a minor. The trial court subsequently sentenced respondent to a term of probation until his twenty-first birthday. Pursuant to section 5--810 of the Act, the trial court also sentenced respondent to a four-year adult sentence of imprisonment, staying the sentence on the condition that the respondent did not violate the conditions of his juvenile probation. After the trial court denied his motion to reconsider sentence, defendant timely filed this appeal.
Respondent's first contention is that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of residential burglary. Respondent contends that the State failed to prove that he intended to commit a theft, either as a principal or as an accomplice. Respondent argues that, although the State was able to place him near the scene of the crime, it could not link him to the items of property stolen from the victim's residence. Respondent also ...