Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > People v. Bonner

People v. Bonner

Case Date: 03/01/2005
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-03-2634 Rel

SECOND DIVISION
Date Filed: March 1, 2005



No. 1-03-2634
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
            ) Circuit Court of
              Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
  )  
              v. ) No. 02 CR 10222
  )  
LAWRENCE BONNER, ) Honorable
  ) Leo E. Holt,
             Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.

 

JUSTICE HALL delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Lawrence Bonner, a convicted sex offender,was charged with violating the Sex Offender Registration Act (theAct) (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West 2000)). Following astipulated bench trial, the defendant was found guilty andsentenced to one year of probation. The defendant appeals. Thesole issue raised on appeal is whether, as applied to thedefendant, the penalty provisions of the Act violate theproportionate penalties clause.

The underlying facts are undisputed. On September 27, 2000,the defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child, aClass A misdemeanor. 720 ILCS 5/11-9.1(a)(1), (c)(1) (West2000).(1) As a result of his conviction for a sex offense, thedefendant was required to register as a sex offender and toreport any change of address. See 730 ILCS 150/3, 6 (West 2000). On April 4, 2002, the defendant was charged with failing toregister as a sex offender.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismisscontending that the penalty portion of the Act wasunconstitutional as applied to him because it made failing toregister a Class 4 felony, while the offense the defendant wasconvicted of was a Class A misdemeanor. See 730 ILCS 150/10(West 2000). Thus, the failing to register was punished moreseverely than the underlying offense. The trial court denied themotion to dismiss.

Based on the stipulated evidence that the defendant hadfailed to register in 2001 and 2002, the trial court found himguilty of violating the Act. The court sentenced the defendantto one year of probation and ordered him to participate in theprobation department's mental health unit's program.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The defendant contends that section 10 of the Act is
unconstitutional as applied to him. "A holding that a statute isunconstitutional as applied does not broadly declare a statuteunconstitutional but narrowly finds the statute unconstitutionalunder the specific facts of the case." People v. Huddleston, 212Ill. 2d 107, 131, 816 N.E.2d 322 (2004).

 

I. Standard of Review

"A statute is presumed constitutional, and the partychallenging the statute bears the burden of demonstrating itsinvalidity." People v. Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d 413, 418, 739 N.E.2d433 (2000) (court rejected numerous arguments attacking theconstitutionality of the Act). "[The] court has a duty toconstrue a statute in a manner that upholds its validity andconstitutionality if it can be reasonably done." Malchow, 193Ill. 2d at 418. Whether a statute is constitutional is aquestion of law that the court reviews de novo. Malchow, 193Ill. 2d at 418.(2)

 

II. Discussion

Article I, section 11, of the Illinois Constitution,commonly known as the proportionate penalties clause, provides inpertinent part that "[a]ll penalties shall be determined ***according to the seriousness of the offense." Ill. Const. 1970,art. I,