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.

People v. Zetterlund

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

March 23, 2018

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AARON ZETTERLUND, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit, McDonough County, Illinois, Circuit No. 13-CF-60 Honorable William E. Poncin, Judge, Presiding.

          JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          SCHMIDT JUSTICE.

         ¶ 1 Defendant, Aaron Zetterlund, appeals his conviction contending that the Sex Offender Registration Act (730 ILCS 150/3(b) (West 2012)) and other related statutes applicable to sex offenders (collectively, the SORA statutory scheme) are unconstitutional. We affirm.

         ¶ 2 FACTS

         ¶ 3 The State charged defendant with criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(2) (West 2012)). The evidence at trial established that on March 9, 2013, defendant was present at a party with the victim and several other individuals. During the course of the night, the victim became severely intoxicated and lost consciousness. While the victim was unconscious, defendant removed the victim's clothing and performed vaginal intercourse on the victim. Defendant's friend, Ethan Deyo, was present and recorded the assault on his phone. The victim did not recall any of these events. The next day, other individuals that were present at the party told the victim what happened, and the victim went to the hospital for a sexual assault examination. The victim stated that she never consented to having sexual intercourse with defendant.

         ¶ 4 Ultimately, the jury found defendant guilty of criminal sexual assault. The court sentenced defendant to six years' imprisonment and an indeterminate term of three years to life of mandatory supervised release (MSR). Because of defendant's conviction, he is subject to the restrictions and obligations set forth in the SORA statutory scheme for the remainder of his life.

         ¶ 5 ANALYSIS

         ¶ 6 On appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of the SORA statutory scheme, which he is now subject to because of his present conviction. We review de novo a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute on appeal. People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872, ¶ 22. Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and in order to overcome this strong presumption, defendant must "clearly establish its invalidity." Id. "A court will affirm the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance if it is 'reasonably capable of such a determination' and 'will resolve any doubt as to the statute's construction in favor of its validity.' " Jackson v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL App (1st) 111044, ¶ 20 (quoting People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 20).

         ¶ 7 Defendant makes two arguments to support his contention: (1) the SORA statutory scheme violates the due process clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions (U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2) and (2) the SORA statutory scheme violates the proportionate penalties guarantees of the United States and Illinois Constitutions (U.S. Const., amend. VIII; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11).

         ¶ 8 Before analyzing each constitutional argument, we note that our supreme court has upheld prior versions of the SORA statutory scheme against similar constitutional challenges. See People v. Cornelius, 213 Ill.2d 178 (2004); People v. Malchow, 193 Ill.2d 413 (2000). Nevertheless, defendant contends that the SORA statutory scheme is different than the prior versions determined to be constitutional because recent additions have made the SORA statutory scheme so onerous that it no longer satisfies constitutional protections.

         ¶ 9 In support of his argument, defendant points out that the current version of the SORA statutory scheme, which has not been addressed by the supreme court, contains the following additional restrictions and obligations: (1) specific restrictions on where sex offenders may be present or live (sections 11-9.3 and 11-9.4-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/11-9.3, 11-9.4-1 (West 2012))), (2) prohibitions against sex offenders working, at any time or any reason, within 500 feet of a school or public park or within 100 feet of a bus stop (id.), (3) requirements of annual renewal of driver's licenses (section 5-3-3(o) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(o) (West 2012))), (4) prohibitions against petitions for name change (section 21-101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (735 ILCS 5/21-101 (West 2012))), (5) increases in the agencies with which a registrant must register in person (section 3(a) of the Sex Offender Registration Act (730 ILCS 150/3(a), (d) (West 2012))), (6) expansion of the information a registrant must provide when reporting (id. § 3(a)), (7) a shortening of the period in which a registrant must appear in person (id. § 7), and (8) an increase in initial and annual registration fees (id. § 3(c)(6)). With this background in mind, we turn to defendant's constitutional claims.

         ¶ 10 I. Due Process

         ¶ 11 First, defendant argues that the SORA statutory scheme violates the due process clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions. U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2. Both the federal and state constitutions provide that no individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2. Upon review, we find the SORA statutory scheme satisfies substantive and procedural due process ...


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.