People v. Edwards

Digitally signed

by Reporter of

Decisions

Reason: I attest to

Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and

integrity of this

document

Appellate Court Date: 2022.03.25

15:48:43 -05'00'

People v. Edwards, 2021 IL App (3d) 130190-C

Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

Caption MATTHEW T. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. Third District

No. 3-13-0190

Filed January 22, 2021

Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 09-CF-1559; the

Review Hon. Amy Bertani-Tomczak, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed in part as modified and reversed in part; cause remanded

with directions.

Counsel on James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Bryon Kohut, of State

Appeal Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Patrick Delfino and

Thomas D. Arado, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office,

of counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with

opinion.

Justices Holdridge and Wright concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Following a stipulated bench trial, the Will County circuit court found defendant, Matthew

T. Edwards, guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder.

¶2 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming his confession to police was

involuntary based on the fact that he was 17 years old at the time, possessed a fifth grade

reading level, suffered from various mental disorders, and that the investigating officers did

not allow him to speak to his mother or another concerned adult despite his request to do so.

The trial court denied the motion.

¶3 The matter proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, following which the trial court found

defendant guilty of both first degree murder and attempted murder. The State dismissed the

aggravated battery with a firearm, home invasion, and armed robbery counts.

¶4 In the sentencing phase, the State sought enhanced sentences on both charges given that

defendant personally discharged a firearm causing both death and great bodily harm. The trial

court found that the State proved the enhancement factors and subsequently sentenced

defendant to 50 years on the murder conviction and 40 years on the attempted murder

conviction.

¶5 On March 13, 2013, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, arguing that it was

excessive. The court denied the motion.

¶6 Defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion

to suppress where defendant was 17 years old at the time of the arrest, had a limited education,

and did not have contact with a parent or concerned adult; (2) the trial court erred when it failed

to hold the statutorily required fitness hearing after it found a bona fide doubt of his fitness to

stand trial; (3) the defendant’s 90-year sentence is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama,

567 U.S. 460 (2012), prohibiting offenders under the age of 18 from receiving mandatory life

sentences, and (4) defendant is entitled to an additional day of presentence incarceration credit.

¶7 This court affirmed defendant’s conviction, directing the trial court to grant defendant one

extra day of presentence incarceration credit. People v. Edwards, 2015 IL App (3d) 130190,

¶¶ 84, 86. In a supervisory order dated November 23, 2016, our supreme court directed us to

vacate and reconsider our judgment in light of People v. Reyes, 2016 IL 119271, to determine

if a different result was warranted. People v. Edwards, No. 119332 (Ill. Nov. 23, 2016)

(supervisory order). After doing so, we concluded that Reyes did not warrant a different result

and affirmed as modified. People v. Edwards, 2017 IL App (3d) 130190-B ¶ 7. In a supervisory

order dated March 25, 2020, our supreme court directed us to vacate and reconsider our

judgment in light of People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, to determine if a different result is

warranted. People v. Edwards, No. 122028 (Ill. Mar. 25, 2020) (supervisory order). And so we

do. We conclude that Buffer requires that defendant’s sentence be vacated and the matter be

remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

¶8 I. BACKGROUND

¶9 The State charged defendant, along with codefendants Ashley Hill, Mary Vetor, and Jason

Orasco by indictment with three counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted murder,

one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, two counts of home invasion, and one count of

armed robbery. The State named Joshua Terdic as the victim in the murder, armed robbery,

-2-

and first home invasion charges. The State named Lauren Vasilakis as the victim of the

attempted murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and second home invasion charges. The

court appointed the public defender to represent defendant.

¶ 10 On September 1, 2009, defendant filed a motion for the appointment of an expert to

determine his fitness to stand trial and whether he was legally sane at the time of the alleged

offenses. Defendant tendered a proposed order to the court indicating that the State had no

objection.

¶ 11 The court ordered Dr. Randi Zoot to examine defendant, determine if he was fit to stand

trial, and if he was legally sane at the time of the offenses. The order stated, “[t]his matter

coming on for hearing on defendant’s motion for expert witness and for fitness hearing, and

for other relief, said motion being uncontested by the People of the State of Illinois, and the

court finding that a bona fide doubt exist [sic] as to defendant’s fitness to stand trial *** it is

hereby ordered” that Dr. Zoot examine defendant.

¶ 12 Ultimately, Dr. Zoot filed a report finding defendant fit to stand trial and sane at the time

of the alleged offenses.

¶ 13 On November 29, 2010, defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements and confession

to the police. The following testimony was elicited at the hearing on the motion.

¶ 14 Detectives Jamie Marquez and Chris Georgeff, both of the Will County and Grundy

County major crimes task force, testified that on July 7, 2009, they were dispatched to 512

Cayuga Street in Joliet to assist the Channahon police. Approximately 12 armed officers were

present to execute an arrest warrant for Orasco. Sergeant Talmontes directed Marquez and

Georgeff to take defendant to the Channahon Police Department.

¶ 15 Marquez testified that prior to being taken to the police station, defendant voluntarily

submitted to a gunshot residue (GSR) test. Georgeff could not recall if defendant submitted to

a GSR test. Defendant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the station. The officers, both

of whom were armed at the time, did not handcuff defendant. Defendant rode in the front seat

of the squad car on the way to the station.

¶ 16 Defendant’s interview began at 5:45 p.m. Marquez read defendant the Miranda warnings

line-by-line. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Defendant indicated he understood

his rights, initialed each line, and signed the form. Both officers were aware that defendant had

just turned 17 years old.

¶ 17 At first, the detectives were only trying to gather facts on defendant’s whereabouts on July

7, 2009. They knew that Terdic had been shot in the head and was in critical condition at the

time of the interview. Defendant initially told officers he was not in Channahon on July 7.

¶ 18 The officers left the room to speak with the detectives who were interviewing Hill, Vetor,

and Orasco. Afterward, Marquez and Georgeff confronted defendant with the codefendants’

statements indicating that defendant was, in fact, in Channahon on the day of the incident.

¶ 19 Defendant’s initial statements were not recorded as officers were unsure at that time

whether he was a suspect. Georgeff stated that he and Marquez did not record the entire

interview because they did not believe they were required to do so. Once defendant agreed to

give a recorded statement, the last 30 minutes of the interview (which included defendant’s

confession) were recorded.

¶ 20 According to Marquez, defendant did not request to speak to his mother. Georgeff could

not recall if defendant asked to speak with his mother or if the police offered to allow defendant

-3-

to call his mother. Marquez and Georgeff were trained as juvenile officers. Georgeff testified

that he was “absolutely” acting in defendant’s best interests. On recross-examination, defense

counsel inquired if Georgeff was only doing what was minimally required to be in defendant’s

best interests, to which Georgeff responded, “Sure.”

¶ 21 Throughout the course of defendant’s detainment and interrogation, he was not beaten or

slapped, he was allowed to use the restroom, and he was allowed food and water if he so

desired. Officers did not inquire as to whether or not defendant had trouble reading or suffered

from any mental illness. Defendant did not volunteer this information, nor did he appear to be

under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Marquez testified they never informed defendant that

his GSR test came back positive, though Georgeff could not recall.

¶ 22 The interrogation took place in a conference room, not an interview room. The door was

not locked. Despite that, defendant would probably not have been able to leave the building.

The interrogation concluded at 8:16 p.m.

¶ 23 Once officers indicated to defendant that his friends placed him at the scene of the crime,

he subsequently gave a statement, which he agreed to have recorded. The tape began at 7:50

p.m. and ended at 8:16 p.m.

¶ 24 The State offered the digital versatile disc (DVD) of defendant’s confession into evidence,

and the trial judge watched it in her chambers. In the DVD, defendant acknowledged receiving

his Miranda rights and answered affirmatively that he knew all his rights. Defendant gave the

following narrative of the events of the previous night/early morning of July 7.

¶ 25 He was drinking with friends at Vetor’s house, went to sleep, and was awakened by Orasco.

Orasco knew a place where they could get money and drugs. Defendant said, “Okay, let’s go.”

Hill and Vetor drove the two men; Vetor got a ticket while parked outside. Orasco grabbed a

shovel, which defendant used to break into the apartment. Defendant then unlocked the

bedroom door with a knife he had taken from the kitchen.

¶ 26 The sleeping couple woke up while defendant and Orasco searched for money and drugs.

Orasco said to tie them up, so defendant and Orasco did so. Orasco hit the male victim in the

knee with a baseball bat, breaking the bat. Orasco had brought the bat and the gun. The victims

were screaming, and Orasco told defendant to shoot, to “Just do it.” Orasco ordered the male

victim to put his head under the pillow. Defendant just wanted to scare the male victim, and as

Orasco was yelling at defendant to shoot and kill him, defendant shot at the pillow. He then

lifted the pillow off the male victim, saw blood on the pillow, put it over the female victim’s

head, and fired two more shots. Defendant then left through the window.

¶ 27 Orasco wore a mask, hoodie, and rubber gloves; defendant wore baseball gloves.

Defendant gave Orasco the gun, which they threw away as they walked to a cabin. Orasco and

defendant texted Hill and Vetor to come pick them up. The four then returned home to Vetor’s

house.

¶ 28 In response to questions during the interrogation, defendant stated he was sorry Terdic got

hurt, and he knew he would “have to do something for it” but hoped it would be a low charge.

Defendant offered to help find evidence. At the conclusion of the video he stated, “I told mom

I’d see her for her birthday and I don’t like lying,” but acknowledged he had lied initially to

cover his tracks. He did not want to get anyone else in trouble. Finally, he acknowledged that

he went to the police station voluntarily, had not been handcuffed, that no promises had been

made, that he had been given his Miranda rights, and had been offered drinks and the use of

-4-

the bathroom. When officers asked if defendant was hungry, he responded that he was a little

bit hungry, and the officers stated they would get him some food. The DVD concluded at 8:16

p.m.

¶ 29 The hearing resumed the next day. Defendant testified that on July 7, 2009, he was 17 years

old and was living at Vetor’s house. He, along with Orasco, Hill, Vetor, and Vetor’s mother

were at the house when police came with an arrest warrant for Orasco. The police requested

that all household members come outside; defendant complied. Officers directed defendant to

stand by one of the squad cars and told him they were going to do a quick GSR test. Afterward,

officers asked defendant if he would accompany them down to the station to answer some

questions about the shooting. Defendant agreed and went voluntarily. He sat in the front seat

of an unmarked squad car and was not handcuffed. Defendant felt he could not decline the

officers’ invitation.

¶ 30 Upon arriving at the station, officers placed defendant in a conference room. Defendant

had been living at Vetor’s house for a couple months; he did not live with his mother.

Defendant testified that as soon as he got to the station he asked to speak with his mother,

telling officers it was her birthday “to get their attention.” He did not know how else to

convince them to allow him to speak to her. The officers did not allow defendant to call his

mother, saying “after the interview.” Defendant was not physically touched.

¶ 31 Defendant originally denied being in Channahon. The officers left the room and returned

two or three minutes later. Midway through the second interview, officers informed defendant

the GSR test came back positive and that his friends implicated him in the incident.

Defendant’s photos were taken for a lineup. Shortly thereafter, defendant gave a statement and

agreed to go on video to record the confession.

¶ 32 When asked about specifics of the interrogation on direct, defendant testified that Marquez

told him that he did not like it when Georgeff gets angry because he has difficulty calming him

down. Georgeff leaned over defendant and spoke in a loud voice. Sometimes the interview was

confrontational; sometimes it was not. Prior to the shooting, defendant had never been

confronted by the police, been in a police station, or incarcerated. He had two previous run-ins

with the police, but his mother was present and he was never arrested. The police told him that

he was going to serve some time in prison, but the officers did not say how much. Defendant

was afraid of the detectives.

¶ 33 Defendant attended the second half of his freshman year of high school, receiving mostly

Ds and Fs. His sophomore year he got Ds and Fs the first semester but did better his second

semester because his grandfather made a concerted effort to help him. Defendant took special

education classes. He dropped out toward the end of his sophomore year because he felt he did

not need school. He read at a fifth or sixth grade level. He suffered from attention deficit

disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hindering his ability to

learn.

¶ 34 Defendant had also been hospitalized previously and was subsequently diagnosed with a

mood disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression. Defendant had been prescribed medication—

Depakote—for the disorders. When he was on the medication, he felt that he could understand

better and felt more in control. On July 7, he was not taking Depakote. Defendant stopped

taking the medication in March or April 2008 because he could no longer afford it. He testified

that being unmedicated affected his ability to understand the interview.

-5-

¶ 35 Defendant knew the meaning of the words “you have the right to remain silent.” He did

not know what the word “attorney” meant. Defendant had heard of the word “lawyer” but was

not familiar with the word “attorney.”

¶ 36 After dropping out of high school, defendant enrolled in the Lincoln’s Challenge Academy

in order to help control his disorders. The first two weeks of the program consisted of vigorous

physical exercise programs. He did not, however, pass his reading, writing, or mathematics

courses because he had a hard time paying attention and could not understand. Defendant

ultimately graduated from the program; one could graduate by not causing trouble.

¶ 37 Janice Edwards (Edwards), defendant’s mother, testified that she was living with her

parents on July 7, 2009, and that defendant was not living with her. The police did not contact

her when they took defendant into custody. She learned of the incident on July 8, when her

brother told her to look at the newspaper, and she saw an article stating that defendant had been

arrested in connection with a shooting.

¶ 38 Edwards stated that defendant could not read or write very well and he could not spell. He

understood children’s books. Defendant would not understand the word “attorney,” but he

would probably understand the word “lawyer.” Defendant suffered from mental health

problems throughout his life. He had been in trouble with the police a couple of years before

the shooting. Though prescribed medication for his disorders, she could not afford them, and

public aid would not cover the medications because she made too much money.

¶ 39 Defendant got into the Lincoln’s Challenge Academy with the help of his high school

counselor. Defendant did well in the program, as it provided the structure he needed. He did

not do well in the academic portion of the program, and he failed the GED test miserably.

Defendant did not attend his high school classes because he did not know what was going on.

¶ 40 After Lincoln’s Challenge Academy, defendant lived with his older brother. He was not

welcome at his grandparents’ home because he had been stealing. According to his mother, at

16 years old, defendant made his own arrangements.

¶ 41 At the conclusion of argument, the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The court

specifically found that, at 17 years old, defendant was not at a tender age. In viewing the DVD,

the court found defendant articulate, he used appropriate words, and his responses showed an

ability to understand the questions posed to him. While defendant lied about it being his

mother’s birthday, apparently in order to see her, the court did not find that dispositive.

Defendant had stopped taking medications for his various disorders over a year before the

interrogation. His records from Joliet High School showed that defendant had an above average

learning potential. The records further indicated that defendant was not developmentally

delayed, nor did he suffer from any type of learning, speech, or hearing impairment. Under the

totality of the circumstances and based upon the credibility of the witnesses, the court found

that defendant’s statement was voluntary.

¶ 42 The State then filed a notice of intent to seek enhanced sentences on the first degree murder

and attempted murder charges based on the fact that defendant personally discharged a firearm

causing both death and great bodily harm. On December 12, 2014, the cause proceeded by way

of a stipulated bench trial. The State dismissed the home invasion, aggravated battery, and

armed robbery charges.

¶ 43 Both parties presented a number of stipulations as to evidence, testimony of the witnesses,

and transcripts from the trials of Vetor and Orasco.

-6-

¶ 44 The evidence tended to show that defendant and Orasco broke into Terdic’s home in the

early morning hours of July 7 looking for money and drugs. When they found only a small

amount of both, they woke up the sleeping couple and demanded more. Vasilakis recognized

Orasco’s voice because she had known him for several years through her sister. She picked

defendant out of a lineup as the man who was holding the gun most of the time. Terdic and

Vasilakis were tied up, ordered to lie on their stomachs, and a pillow was placed over their

heads. Defendant asked if they should use the bat to try to knock out the victims. Orasco said

“no” and that defendant should just “do it.” Vasilakis felt someone on the bed over Terdic,

who was lying next to her, and then she heard a shot. The person then got up, went around the

bed, and got on top of her. She heard two clicks and a bang, and she realized she had been shot.

After defendant and Orasco left, Vasilakis untied herself and had the neighbor call the police.

¶ 45 The trial court found defendant guilty and that the State had proved the enhancement

factors.

¶ 46 On February 27, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to 50 years on the murder conviction

and 40 years on the attempted murder conviction. The sentences were to be served at 100%

and run consecutively to one another. Although the court found, at 17 years old, defendant was

not at a tender age, it did not address defendant’s youth or the attendant circumstances of such

youth. The court further awarded defendant custody credit from July 8, 2009, to February 27,

2013.

¶ 47 Defendant subsequently filed a motion to reduce his sentence, arguing that it was excessive.

The court denied the motion.

¶ 48 Defendant appeals.

¶ 49 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 50 A. Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

¶ 51 Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

Specifically, that his statement cannot be considered voluntary where he was 17 years old at

the time, had a limited education, read only at a fifth or sixth grade level, did not have contact

with a parent or other concerned adult, and had minimal prior contacts with the police.

¶ 52 When faced with a challenge to a circuit court’s ruling on the voluntariness of a confession,

a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are against the

manifest weight of the evidence. However, the ultimate ruling on whether a confession was

voluntary is reviewed under the de novo standard. People v. Murdock, 2012 IL 112362, ¶ 29.

¶ 53 Illinois courts have long recognized that receiving a confession from a juvenile is a

“sensitive concern.” People v. Prude, 66 Ill. 2d 470, 476 (1977); Murdock, 2012 IL 112362,

¶ 32. As a consequence, “ ‘the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was

voluntary, in the sense not only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not

the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair.’ ” People v.

Simmons, 60 Ill. 2d 173, 180 (1975) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55 (1967)). Due to these

concerns, an additional factor is recognized that is not present in cases involving confessions

by adults. This factor, commonly known as the “concerned adult” factor, considers whether

the juvenile, either before or during the interrogation, had an opportunity to consult with an

adult interested in his welfare. In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37, 54-55 (2000).

-7-

¶ 54 Thus, in determining whether a juvenile’s confession was voluntarily given, relevant

considerations include (1) the juvenile’s age, intelligence, background, experience, education,

mental capacity, and physical condition at the time of questioning; (2) the duration of the

detention, including whether the police physically or mentally abused the juvenile or employed

trickery or deceit in obtaining the confession; and (3) whether the juvenile had an opportunity

to speak with a parent or other concerned adult prior to or during the interrogation, including

whether the police prevented or frustrated such opportunities. Murdock, 2012 IL 112362,

¶¶ 30-32. No single factor is dispositive; rather, the courts must consider the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the confession. Id. ¶ 30.

¶ 55 While we acknowledge that defendant suffered from some mental health disorders and did

not finish high school, based upon our review of the record, the trial court’s factual findings

and prevailing case law on the subject, we cannot find that the trial court erred in denying

defendant’s motion to suppress.

¶ 56 Defendant places a great amount of emphasis on the fact that he did not have contact with

a concerned adult during the interrogation. He argues that the concerned adult factor weighs

heavily in his case, where the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) provides:

“A law enforcement officer who arrests a minor without a warrant under Section 5-401

shall, if the minor is not released, immediately make a reasonable attempt to notify the

parent or other person legally responsible for the minor’s care or the person with whom

the minor resides that the minor has been arrested and where the minor is being held;

and the law enforcement officer shall without unnecessary delay take the minor to the

nearest juvenile police officer designated for these purposes in the county of venue or

shall surrender the minor to a juvenile police officer in the city or village where the

offense is alleged to have been committed.” 705 ILCS 405/5-405(2) (West 2008).

¶ 57 We note, however, that defendant was not subject to the provisions of the Act at the time

of the shooting and subsequent interrogation, where section 5-120 provided that the relevant

provisions of the Act applied to minors who violated or attempted to violate the law prior to

their seventeenth birthday. Id. § 5-120. Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the incident

in July 2009. Pursuant to Public Act 98-61 (eff. Jan. 1, 2014) (amending 705 ILCS 405/5-120),

the legislature amended section 5-120 to apply to 17-year-olds. This change occurred 4½ years

after defendant’s interrogation.

¶ 58 Defendant concedes he falls outside the purview of the Act but, notwithstanding that,

argues that the concerned adult factor still applies to him on common law grounds, citing

People v. Westmorland, 372 Ill. App. 3d 868, 880 (2007). Westmorland, however, is readily

distinguishable from the case at bar. In Westmorland, the 17-year-old defendant charged with

multiple sex offenses moved to suppress his statements to police as involuntary. The trial court

granted the motion, noting that despite the fact that defendant was 17 years old, “ ‘[h]e appears

not to be a very mature 17.’ ” Id. at 874. Defendant struck the court as being somewhat

immature, a little bit pudgy with rosy cheeks. Id. The court further observed defendant as under

six feet tall, wide-eyed, frightened, with no noticeable facial hair. Id.

¶ 59 By comparison, the interviewing officer was an imposing figure, well over six feet tall,

over 200 pounds, fit and muscular, and with a dominant personality. Id. The court also found

that the defendant was handcuffed and abandoned in the interrogation room, the officer used

threatening language, and the officers engaged in some deception during the interview when

they led defendant to believe that if he cooperated he could go home. Id. at 875. Police refused

-8-

defendant’s two requests to contact his mother and made no effort themselves to contact

defendant’s parents before or during the interview. Id. at 890. The appellate court affirmed,

noting that the Act did not restrict the factors to be considered under the common

law/constitutional voluntariness inquiry. Id. at 880. Applying the concerned adult factor, the

court found that under the totality of the circumstances, the State did not prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s confession was voluntary. Id. at 879-80.

¶ 60 We are confronted with a very different scenario here. The trial court reviewed the

interview tape twice and observed defendant during his testimony on the motion to suppress.

The trial court thoroughly and methodically considered the factors of defendant’s age,

intelligence, background, experience, mental capacity, education and physical condition at the

time of questioning. Defendant was no wide-eyed, 17-year-old that appeared immature. Quite

the opposite, defendant responded appropriately to questioning and was articulate, both during

the interview and in his testimony during the suppression hearing. While there was some

allusion to force and deception on the part of officers in Westmorland, there was no such

behavior exhibited by officers here. Both Marquez and Georgeff were trained juvenile officers,

and Georgeff testified that they acted in defendant’s best interests. That Marquez and Georgeff

only recorded the confession portion of defendant’s interview does not render the statement

involuntary. The trial court clearly found the officers’ testimony credible that they initially

only brought defendant in to establish his whereabouts and ask a few questions.

¶ 61 Finally, the officers were not bound by the dictates of the Act to contact defendant’s mother

or to allow him to speak with a concerned adult. Even when considering the concerned adult

factor as one of many when determining the voluntariness of a confession, our supreme court

has specifically held that a juvenile confession should not be suppressed simply because he

was denied the opportunity to confer with a concerned adult. In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 55. Here,

there were conflicting accounts from defendant and the officers regarding whether or not he

requested to speak with his mother. The trial court found that the fact defendant did not speak

with his mother or another concerned adult was not dispositive. Based on the totality of the

circumstances presented, we agree. The trial court’s factual findings are not against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we find that defendant’s statements were

voluntary and that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.

¶ 62 B. Bona Fide Doubt of Defendant’s Fitness to Stand Trial

¶ 63 Defendant contends that after the trial court signed an order finding a bona fide doubt of

defendant’s fitness and ordering a psychological evaluation, the trial court erred when it failed

to hold the statutorily required fitness hearing before proceeding to the stipulated bench trial.

Despite his failure to object at trial or addressing it in his posttrial motion, defendant contends

we should review this issue under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine. Without

addressing defendant’s alleged forfeiture of the issue or mentioning plain-error review, the

State argues that the trial court did not actually raise or find a bona fide doubt of defendant’s

fitness but merely granted defendant’s motion for a fitness examination.

¶ 64 First, the plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when

one of two conditions is met:

“ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the

error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the

seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so

-9-

serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity

of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Walker,

232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 (2009) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)).

¶ 65 “Under both prongs of the plain-error doctrine, the burden of persuasion remains with

defendant.” Id. (citing People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)). The initial step in

conducting plain-error analysis is to determine whether error occurred at all. People v. Hudson,

228 Ill. 2d 181, 191 (2008). We are therefore obligated to conduct a substantive review of the

issue. See People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003).

¶ 66 Here, defendant’s claim implicates section 104-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of

1963 (the Code), which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“(a) The issue of the defendant’s fitness for trial *** may be raised by the defense, the

State or the Court at any appropriate time before a plea is entered or before, during, or

after trial. When a bona fide doubt of the defendant’s fitness is raised, the court shall

order a determination of the issue before proceeding further.

(b) Upon request of the defendant that a qualified expert be appointed to examine

him or her to determine prior to trial if a bona fide doubt as to his or her fitness to stand

trial may be raised, the court, in its discretion, may order an appropriate examination.

However, no order entered pursuant to this subsection shall prevent further proceedings

in the case. An expert so appointed shall examine the defendant and make a report as

provided in Section 104-15. Upon the filing with the court of a verified statement of

services rendered, the court shall enter an order on the county board to pay such expert

a reasonable fee stated in the order.” 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a), (b) (West 2012).

¶ 67 Also at issue is section 104-13, under which defendant originally brought his motion for

fitness hearing and for appointment of an expert witness to determine defendant’s sanity. That

section provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“(a) When the issue of fitness involves the defendant’s mental condition, the court

shall order an examination of the defendant by one or more licensed physicians, clinical

psychologists, or psychiatrists chosen by the court.” Id. § 104-13(a).

¶ 68 The parties dispute whether or not the trial court expressly made a finding that a bona fide

doubt of fitness existed. This is based in large part on the fact that the signed order, drafted by

defense counsel, states:

“This matter coming on for hearing on defendant’s motion for expert witness and for

fitness hearing, and for other relief, said motion being uncontested by the People of the

State of Illinois, and the Court finding that a bonafide doubt exist [sic] as to Defendant’s

fitness to stand trial under 725 ILCS 5/104-13 et seq.”

¶ 69 We agree with the State and find People v. Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d 212 (2004), directly on

point. In Hanson, our supreme court determined that a grant of a defense motion for a

psychological evaluation, without more, does not create a sufficient inference that the trial

court found bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness to stand trial such that the trial court would

be required to hold a fitness hearing before proceeding.

¶ 70 Specifically, the court noted that the defense motion referred only to section 104-13(a) of

the Code (725 ILCS 5/104-13(a) (West 2012)) and made no reference to section 104-11(a) or

(b). Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 219. Section 104-13(a) only specifies who may be appointed to

examine a defendant when the question of fitness involves mental health issues and can be

- 10 -

used in conjunction with section 104-11(a) or (b). Id. Thus, the language in defendant’s own

motion failed to advance his argument that the trial court was bound to hold a fitness hearing

under section 104-11(a). Id. at 219-20.

¶ 71 Similarly, defendant here brought his motion pursuant to section 104-13(a), requesting that

the court appoint a qualified expert to evaluate defendant’s fitness to stand trial, not under 104-

11(a). Although the order the court signed contained the language “bona fide doubt,” it was

defendant who drafted this order. A review of the record gives us no indication whatsoever

that the trial court or the State implicitly agreed with defense counsel or raised on their own a

bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness. We note that under Hanson, even if defendant filed a

motion under section 104-11(a), the trial court could specify its need for a fitness examination

by an expert to aid in its determination of whether a bona fide doubt is raised without a fitness

hearing becoming mandatory. See id. at 217. Considering that contemporaneously with the

substance of defendant’s motion, we find that defendant merely requested an expert evaluation.

¶ 72 Finally, this situation is a far cry from that of People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236 (2004),

where the court raised sua sponte a bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness to stand trial after

defendant’s first psychological evaluation and defendant’s expression of dissatisfaction with

the public defender and repeated requests to represent himself. Id. at 238. The trial court further

articulated her concern regarding defendant’s potential for “ ‘outbursts.’ ” Id. at 241. By

contrast, although the order drafted here was inartful, we find the court’s oral comments and

actions reflect that the issue of fitness had been raised, and it ordered a fitness evaluation to

assist in determining whether a bona fide doubt as to fitness actually existed. This

determination is bolstered by the fact that nothing in the record supported a conclusion that

defendant was unfit.

¶ 73 We accordingly find no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s decision to proceed to

trial without holding a fitness hearing.

¶ 74 C. Sentencing

¶ 75 Defendant also contends that his 90-year sentence amounts to a de facto life sentence in

violation of Miller, 567 U.S. 460, which prohibits the imposition of a mandatory life sentence

on offenders under the age of 18. Despite failing to raise this issue during sentencing or in his

later motion to reduce sentence, defendant argues the court can review a challenge to the

constitutionality of a sentencing scheme at any time. See People v. Ruiz, 342 Ill. App. 3d 750,

762 (2003).

¶ 76 We rejected defendant’s claims and affirmed. Edwards, 2015 IL App (3d) 130190, ¶¶ 81,

86. Our supreme court entered a supervisory order to reconsider our holding in light of Reyes,

2016 IL 119271. Edwards, No. 119332. We found that Reyes neither affected the rationale of

our opinion nor required a different result. Edwards, 2017 IL App (3d) 130190-B, ¶ 81. We

again affirmed. Id. ¶ 87. After its decision in People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, the supreme

court issued another supervisory order directing us to reconsider in light of Buffer. Edwards,

No. 122028. And so we do.

¶ 77 In Buffer, the court clarified that in order to

“prevail on a claim based on Miller and its progeny, a defendant sentenced for an

offense committed while a juvenile must show that (1) the defendant was subject to a

life sentence, mandatory or discretionary, natural or de facto, and (2) the sentencing

- 11 -

court failed to consider youth and its attendant characteristics in imposing the

sentence.” Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 27.

The court then chose to use the mandatory minimum decided upon by the legislature as the

demarcation for what is considered a de facto life sentence for juveniles. See id. ¶¶ 39-40.

Looking to subsection (c) of a recently revised juvenile sentencing statute, the court reasoned

that “the General Assembly has determined that the specified first degree murders that would

justify natural life imprisonment for adult offenders would warrant a mandatory minimum

sentence of 40 years for juvenile offenders.” Id. ¶ 39; see also 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(c) (West

2016). Buffer makes it clear that in Illinois any juvenile sentenced to incarceration in excess of

40 years has received a de facto life sentence. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 40. Further, in order

to sentence a juvenile defendant to a sentence over 40 years, without the possibility of parole,

the court must consider the defendant’s youth and the attendant circumstances that accompany

such youth. Id. ¶ 42. After reviewing the sentencing hearing in this matter, the trial court

imposed a de facto life sentence without considering the defendant’s youth and its attendant

characteristics.

¶ 78 Accordingly, under Buffer, we must vacate defendant’s 90-year sentence and remand for

resentencing. See id. ¶ 47. On remand, defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the scheme

prescribed by section 5-4.5-105 of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105

(West 2016)). See Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 47.

¶ 79 D. Presentence Incarceration Credit

¶ 80 Defendant argues, and the State concedes, that he is entitled to one additional day of

presentence incarceration credit. Defendant was taken into custody on July 7, 2009, but the

trial court’s judgment ordered that defendant be given presentence incarceration credit from

July 8, 2009. Pursuant to People v. Smith, 258 Ill. App. 3d 261, 267 (1994), a defendant held

in custody for even part of a day, including the day he was arrested, must be given sentence

credit for that day.

¶ 81 Accordingly, we direct the trial court to grant defendant one extra day of presentence

incarceration credit.

¶ 82 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 83 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part as modified and reverse in part the judgment

of the circuit court of Will County and remand with directions.

¶ 84 Affirmed in part as modified and reversed in part; cause remanded with directions.

- 12 -