{
  "id": 3643232,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN JAMES, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. James",
  "decision_date": "1986-10-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201486\u20140225",
  "first_page": "536",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 536"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "358 N.E.2d 726",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 3d 607",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2814046
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/44/0607-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 N.E.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3206342
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/84/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "431 N.E.2d 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3082585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/88/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 N.E.2d 1029",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3069839
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/79/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "458 N.E.2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 Ill. App. 3d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3592858
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/120/0625-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "433 N.E.2d 267",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 2d 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5494560
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/89/0308-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 359,
    "char_count": 4794,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.576169926429102e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40277541277503054
    },
    "sha256": "193f8c7c4d6dc19d1272aa73bf6db7a264ff5c6d7f84f0de06742339cde8f305",
    "simhash": "1:a7996c3d0787b6e5",
    "word_count": 759
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:24.109479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN JAMES, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE MORTHLAND\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial, the McLean County circuit court found defendant guilty of the offense of retail theft over $150, a Class 3 felony (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, pars. 16A \u2014 3(a), 16A \u2014 10(3)). The State presented evidence at trial which, if believed, identified the defendant as the man observed leaving an Oseo drugstore in possession of three telephones for which he had not paid. The retail price of the telephones was $297. Following conviction, the court sentenced defendant to two years\u2019 incarceration in the Department of Corrections.\nOn appeal, defendant maintains that section 16A \u2014 10(3) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 16A \u2014 10(3)) violates equal protection and the due-process guarantees of the United States and Illinois constitutions. Defendant suggests that no rational distinction can be made between retail theft and ordinary theft; thus, it is unconstitutional to punish the offenses as felonies using different property-value thresholds. In this regard, defendant notes that, had he been prosecuted for theft (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1(e)(1)), he would have been prosecuted only for a misdemeanor since the value of the property he stole was less than $300. The retail-theft statute, by contrast, punishes as a felony retail theft of property worth $150 or more. We are unpersuaded by defendant\u2019s argument.\nInitially, we note that defendant did not present his constitutional argument to the trial court. However, a conviction obtained under an unconstitutional statute is void and may be attacked at any time. People v. Wagner (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 308, 433 N.E.2d 267; People v. McNeal (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 625, 458 N.E.2d 630.\nThe threshold question in determining whether equal protection has been violated is whether persons similarly situated are being treated dissimilarly. (People v. Bradley (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 410, 403 N.E.2d 1029.) The legislature has broad discretion to classify offenses and prescribe penalties for those offenses. An equal-protection challenge to such a classification will fail if a rational distinction between two classifications is possible. People v. La Pointe (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 482, 431 N.E.2d 344.\nApplying this analysis to the case at hand, the defendant\u2019s equal-protection argument must fail because different elements are required to prove theft as opposed to retail theft. (People v. McNeal (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 625, 458 N.E.2d 630.) The theft statute intends to protect property owners, and prosecutors must prove ownership of the goods in question. (People v. Wynn (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 591, 406 N.E.2d 35.) The retail-theft statute, by contrast, protects retail merchants who necessarily must put property where it is accessible to potential thieves. Moreover, merchants may or may not own the property which they display, but are nevertheless harmed by its theft. (People v. Wynn (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 591, 406 N.E.2d 35; People v. Fix (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 607, 358 N.E.2d 726.) We believe it was rational for the legislature to distinguish between those who steal from retail merchants and those who steal from others, given the increased vulnerability of the former category\u2019s victims.\nSimilarly, we reject defendant\u2019s claim that the disparity in punishment between theft and retail theft violates due-process protections. Our inquiry under the due-process clause is whether the legislature has reasonably designed the statute in question to remedy evils which threaten public health, safety, and welfare. (People v. Bradley (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 410, 403 N.E.2d 1029.) We find that the legislature could reasonably conclude that there was a greater detriment to the State\u2019s economy, along with a greater opportunity for committing the offense of retail theft as opposed to simple theft. We cannot say that the legislature acted unreasonably in deciding to punish the theft of property worth $150 to $300 more severely when the victim was a retail merchant. People v. McNeal (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 625, 458 N.E.2d 630.\nThe defendant\u2019s challenge to the constitutionality of the felony retail-theft provision is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the McLean County circuit court.\nAffirmed.\nWEBBER and SPITZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE MORTHLAND"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Karen Munoz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Ronald C. Dozier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Eleesha Pastor O\u2019Neill, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201486\u20140225\nOpinion filed October 28, 1986.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Karen Munoz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nRonald C. Dozier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Eleesha Pastor O\u2019Neill, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0536-01",
  "first_page_order": 558,
  "last_page_order": 560
}