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.

The People of the State of Illinois v. Hezekiah Hamilton

December 14, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HEZEKIAH HAMILTON,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 07-CF-3445 Honorable Timothy Q. Sheldon, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Presiding Justice Jorgensen

PRESIDING JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Bowman and Zenoff concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant, Hezekiah Hamilton, appeals from his 55-year term of imprisonment for first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2006)). He argues only that, "because [he] is facing deportation to Jamaica, imprisoning him for 55 years cannot be justified by any rational criteria." We do not agree that a status as a deportable alien should be a factor in the length of a sentence for first-degree murder. We therefore affirm defendant's sentence.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A grand jury indicted defendant on one count of first-degree murder (knowing performance of acts creating a strong probability of death). The charge stemmed from the October 30, 2007, stabbing death of Brenetta Beck. Defendant had a bench trial, and, on March 11, 2010, the court found him guilty.

¶ 4 At sentencing, the State requested that the court impose a 60-year term of imprisonment, the standard-term maximum. The court noted that defendant was subject to discretionary extended-term sentencing because he was serving the mandatory-supervised-release portion of a sentence for a Class X felony when he committed the murder. It discussed all of defendant's mitigation evidence and stated that it had considered all statutory factors in mitigation. It further explicitly stated that it had taken into account the cost of defendant's incarceration. The mitigating evidence was its basis for imposing a sentence of 55 years' imprisonment rather than 60.

¶ 5 Defendant timely moved for reduction of his sentence, the court denied the motion, and he timely appealed.

¶ 6 Defendant is a Jamaican citizen. He was born on June 16, 1983. His projected parole date is October 18, 2062.

¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 8 On appeal, defendant has expressly disavowed any argument that the court failed to consider statutory factors in mitigation. He rests his claim that his sentence is too long entirely on the argument that the inevitability of his deportation makes imprisoning him for 55 years unreasonable and a waste of money. He points out that he will be 79 years old when he is released from prison. The State responds that a status as a deportable alien cannot be what amounts to a factor in mitigation in a murder case.

¶ 9 We agree with the State. When a first-degree murder sentence is otherwise appropriate and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, it would be inconsistent with the ends of justice for a status as a deportable alien to be cause to reduce the sentence.

¶ 10 The inescapable implication of defendant's argument is that noncitizens typically should get shorter sentences for deportable crimes because they will be removed from the United States upon their release. That argument has at least three unacceptable implications. One, the rule would be unfair to citizens because it would frequently result in their receiving more severe sentences than noncitizens. Two, the rule would reduce the entire role of punishment to protection of the United States' public from convicted defendants without giving any weight to the need to deter or the need to avoid deprecating the seriousness of a defendant's conduct. Three, the rule would give no weight at all to the need to protect the residents of an offender's nation of citizenship. It would institutionalize a policy of simply exporting convicted offenders where possible.

ΒΆ 11 We find no definitive expression of our legislature's position on the interaction between deportation and the severity of sentences. However, section 5-5-3(l) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(l) (West ...


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.