Find Legal Information

SIXTH DIVISION
October 5, 2001

Following a bench trial, defendant Hasaan Echols was convictedof burglary and sentenced to a Class X prison term of 20 yearsbased on his criminal history. On appeal, defendant contends themandatory Class X sentencing provision of section 5-5-3(c)(8) ofthe Unified Code of Corrections (the Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8)(West 1998)) is unconstitutional because it required his sentenceto be increased based on prior convictions that were not charged inthe indictment, submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonabledoubt.

Defendant was convicted of burglary, a Class 2 felony (720ILCS 5/19-1 (West 1998)). Although a Class 2 felony provides fora possible prison sentence from three to seven years (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(5)(West 1998)), defendant's prior convictions required himto receive a Class X prison sentence based on section 5-5-3(c)(8)of the Code. A Class X prison sentence ranges from 6 to 30 years,and the court imposed a 20-year sentence. 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8)(West 1998).

In this appeal, defendant contends that the mandatory Class Xsentencing provision of section 5-5-3(c)(8) of the Code is uncon-stitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed.2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000).

This court recently addressed and rejected defendant's exactcontention in People v. Lathon, 317 Ill. App. 3d 573 (2000). InLathon, the defendant argued that section 5-5-3(c)(8) was unconsti-tutional pursuant to Apprendi because it increased the maximumpenalty to which the defendant was subject without any requirementof notice of the facts that subjected him to that increased penaltyand a jury determination of whether those facts existed upon proofof a reasonable doubt. This court rejected the defendant's argu-ment, noting that a defendant's recidivism is a narrow exception tothe general rule articulated in Apprendi that "any fact thatincreases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutorymaximum must be alleged in the charging document, submitted to ajury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Lathon, 317 Ill. App.3d at 587. This court determined that Apprendi does not rendersection 5-5-3(c)(8) unconstitutional because the ruling in Apprendispecifically excluded increased penalties based on priorconvictions. Lathon, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 587; see also People v.Ramos, 318 Ill. App. 3d 181, 193 (2000). We agree and find defen-dant's argument without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Gallagher, P.J., and O'Mara Frossard, J., concur.