Rule 23 Order filed June 12, 2013.
Motion to publish allowed July 16, 2013.
Defendant’s convictions and sentences for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery were upheld on appeal where the indictment apprised defendant of the precise offense charged with sufficient specificity and the 15-year sentencing enhancement mandated by section 18-2(b) of the Criminal Code was properly imposed, but the mittimus was modified so as to require defendant to provide only one DNA sample and pay only one DNA analysis assessment, and finally, defendant’s request to offset that assessment with the per diem presentence incarceration credit was rejected on the ground that the assessment is a fee that is not subject to the credit.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, Nos. 09-CF-911, 09-CF- 912; the Hon. Glenn H. Collier, Judge, presiding.
Santiago A. Durango, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.
Jerry Brady, State’s Attorney, of Peoria (Terry A. Mertel and Nadia L. Chaudhry, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Justices Schmidt and O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 Following a stipulated bench trial, defendant, Lavoris Larenzo Wright, was found guilty of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2008)) and attempted armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-2(a)(2) (West 2008)), for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 21 and 10 years of imprisonment, respectively. Defendant filed a motion for the court to reconsider the sentence, which was denied. Defendant appealed, arguing that: (1) the indictment charging armed robbery was void; (2) the trial court erred in imposing two orders for defendant to submit a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample and DNA analysis fee; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing a 15-year sentencing enhancement on the armed robbery conviction. We affirm as modified.
¶ 2 FACTS
¶ 3 In case No. 09-CF-911, defendant was charged with armed robbery of the convenience store Mark's Market. The indictment alleged that on August 17, 2009, defendant committed armed robbery in that "while armed with a dangerous weapon, a firearm" he took money from William Randle by threatening imminent use of force in violation of section 18-2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2008)). In case No. 09-CF-912, defendant was charged with attempted armed robbery, with allegations that on August 17, 2009, he performed a substantial step toward the commission of armed robbery by entering the Subway while armed with a firearm and demanding money from James Hinds.
¶ 4 On June 6, 2010, defendant was found guilty of both counts in a stipulated bench trial. In exchange for a negotiated plea agreement, defendant stipulated to the evidence that the State would have presented at trial.
¶ 5 Specifically, the parties stipulated that Randle would have testified that on August 17, 2009, he was working at Mark's Market when two men entered with bandanas covering their faces. One man pointed a gun at Randle and demanded money. Randle placed the money tray from the cash register on the counter. One of the men took all the paper currency, and the robbers fled. Randle gave a ...