Case ID: ne3d_124/html/0480-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jeffrey RILEY, Petitioner.
    No. 123171
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    May 22, 2019
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate the portion of its Rule 23 order in People v. Riley, case No. 1-15-3043 (12/29/17) that addressed defendant's challenges to the circuit court's fines and fees order. With regard to these claims, the appellate court is directed to remand the case to the circuit court where the defendant may raise his contentions of error in sentencing as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 472.
    Burke, J., joined by Neville, J., dissenting from denial of the petition for leave to appeal with entry of a supervisory order. Dissent attached.
    JUSTICE BURKE, dissenting from denial of the petition for leave to appeal with entry of a supervisory order:
    ¶1 For the reasons stated in my dissents in People v. Griffin, No. 122549 (Ill. Apr. 18, 2019) (supervisory order), and People v. Rios-Salazar, No. 123052 (Ill. Apr. 18, 2019) (supervisory order), I disagree with the majority's use of supervisory authority in this case to summarily vacate, without explanation, portions of the judgment of the appellate court. As I explained in Griffin and Rios-Salazar, this court may not permanently reverse or vacate a judgment of the appellate court without providing a legal basis for that action. Merely invoking the words "supervisory authority" is not a legal explanation for why the appellate court erred, nor is it a legal justification for vacating a reasoned disposition of the appellate court.