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. Ingram

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

July 19, 2018

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent-Appellee,
v.
DUSTIN INGRAM, Petitioner-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of Douglas County No. 06CF23 Honorable Daniel L. Flannell, Judge Presiding.

          JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Harris and Justice Holder White concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          STEIGMANN, JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 In March 2006, the State charged defendant, Dustin Ingram, with one count of armed robbery with a firearm. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(4) (West 2006). At the time of the alleged crime, defendant was 16 years old. The armed robbery with a firearm count excluded defendant from juvenile court. 705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(a) (West 2006).

         ¶ 2 In May 2006, the parties asked the trial court to approve a negotiated plea agreement. In exchange for his guilty plea and a sentence of 18 years in prison, the State agreed to amend the charge to armed robbery with a dangerous weapon. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(1) (West 2006). Standing alone, armed robbery with a dangerous weapon could have been adjudicated in juvenile court. See 705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(a) (West 2006). The trial court accepted the plea agreement.

         ¶ 3 In August 2015, defendant filed a petition for relief from judgment and a motion to vacate a void judgment, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because the State (1) dismissed the armed robbery with a firearm count and (2) failed to request a hearing to sentence him as an adult. In September 2015, the State filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2016, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss.

         ¶ 4 Defendant appeals, arguing his "adult conviction and sentence are void because the amendment of the charging instrument from *** armed robbery with a firearm to armed robbery with a dangerous weapon extinguished criminal court jurisdiction and effectively transferred [the] case to juvenile court." Likewise, defendant argues his sentence is void because the State did not request a hearing to sentence him as an adult. We disagree, concluding that (1) the trial court had jurisdiction and (2) the State was not required to request a hearing to sentence defendant as an adult.

         ¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 6 A. The Original Information

         ¶ 7 In March 2006 the State charged defendant with one count of armed robbery with a firearm. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(4) (West 2006). At the time of the alleged crime, defendant was 16 years old. The armed robbery with a firearm count excluded defendant from juvenile court. 705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(a) (West 2006). The original information stated as follows:

"That on March 13, 2006, *** [defendant] committed the offense of ARMED ROBBERY in that the said defendant, while armed with a firearm, knowingly took property *** from the presence of [the victim] by use of force; further, said defendant, during the course of this offense, personally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily harm to [the victim]."

         ¶ 8 B. The Guilty Plea

         ¶ 9 1. The Amended Information

         ¶ 10 In May 2006, the parties asked the trial court to approve a negotiated plea agreement. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to reduce the charge to armed robbery with a dangerous weapon. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(1) (West 2006). Standing alone, armed robbery with a dangerous weapon could have been adjudicated in juvenile court. See 705 ILCS ...


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.