## Facts

- A Lake County detective conducted an undercover AOL operation using a profile for “Ricky,” age 12.
- Douglas I. Scott initiated contact, confirmed “Ricky” was 12, identified himself as 34, and engaged in sexually explicit messages.
- Scott and “Ricky” arranged to meet at a Denny’s; Scott missed the first meeting, then emailed apologies and renewed interest.
- A second meeting was set; Scott arrived, approached an undercover detective posed as “Ricky,” and was arrested.
- At the station, police gave Miranda warnings; Scott initially refused to sign a waiver but, according to officers, agreed to talk, later signed a waiver, and gave oral and written inculpatory statements.
- Scott claimed he invoked counsel and that questioning continued; the trial court credited the officers and denied suppression.
- After a bench trial, Scott was convicted of attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, attempted aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and two counts of attempted indecent solicitation of a child.
- At sentencing, the court relied in aggravation on a prior child-pornography conviction that was later vacated as unconstitutional; Scott received 12 years’ imprisonment and a concurrent 365-day term on a misdemeanor count.

## Issues

1. Whether Scott’s post-arrest statements should have been suppressed because police continued interrogation after he allegedly invoked the right to counsel.
2. Whether the evidence proved attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child where the “child” was an undercover officer.
3. Whether the evidence and statute supported attempted indecent solicitation of a child based on computer communications after an amendment addressing computer solicitation was invalidated.
4. Whether sentencing was erroneous because the court relied on a prior conviction later vacated.
5. Whether the 365-day misdemeanor sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a Class A misdemeanor.

## Decision

- Affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings that Scott did not unequivocally request counsel and voluntarily waived Miranda rights.
- Affirmed the conviction for attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, holding that explicit communications, arranging a meeting, and appearing at the meeting location constituted intent plus a substantial step; the absence of an actual child did not bar attempt liability.
- Affirmed the attempted indecent-solicitation convictions, holding the pre-amendment statute was broad enough to cover solicitation via computer despite the later-invalidated amendment.
- Remanded for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court expressly relied on a prior conviction that had been vacated.
- Modified the misdemeanor sentence from 365 days to 364 days to conform to the Class A misdemeanor maximum.

## Legal Principles

- Suppression rulings turning on credibility are reviewed deferentially; a trial court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- After Miranda warnings, interrogation must cease if a suspect unambiguously invokes the right to counsel; absent a clear invocation, a voluntary waiver permits questioning.
- Illinois attempt liability requires specific intent to commit the offense and a substantial step; factual impossibility (no real victim) is not a defense.
- Indecent solicitation can be proved by communications inviting a child to engage in sexual activity; use of a computer may fall within broadly worded statutory language even if a later amendment addressing computers is invalidated.
- A sentencing court may not rely in aggravation on a conviction that has been vacated; when reliance is shown, resentencing is required.
- A Class A misdemeanor prison term may not exceed 364 days.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld Scott’s Internet-sting attempt convictions and admission of his statements, but ordered resentencing because the trial court relied on a vacated prior conviction, and corrected the misdemeanor term to the 364-day statutory maximum.


People v. Scott, 318 Ill. App. 3d 46 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2000)