Case Title: People v. Boyce

Citation: 2015 IL 117108

Docket Number: 117108

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2015-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Illinois Official Reports 
 
Supreme Court 
 
 
People v. Boyce, 2015 IL 117108 
 
 
 
Caption in Supreme 
Court: 
 
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. 
ANTHONY BOYCE, Appellant. 
 
 
 
Docket No. 
 
117108 
 
 
 
Filed 
 
 
February 20, 2015 
 
 
 
Held 
(Note: 
This 
syllabus 
constitutes no part of the 
opinion of the court but 
has been prepared by the 
Reporter of Decisions 
for the convenience of 
the reader.) 
 
 
A claim that the offense of attempted solicitation of murder does not 
exist in Illinois was rejected in the case of an inmate who requested a 
murder by writing letters which never reached the addressee after they 
were placed in the prison mail system and intercepted by prison 
officials—criminal intent established and general attempt statute 
applicable. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Decision Under  
Review 
 
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; heard in that 
court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Hon. 
James B. Linn, Judge, presiding. 
 
 
 
 
Judgment 
 
Affirmed. 
 
 
- 2 - 
 
Counsel on 
Appeal 
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, 
Deputy Defender, and Philip D. Payne, Assistant Appellate Defender, 
of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for 
appellant. 
 
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Anita Alvarez, 
State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michelle Katz, 
Annette Collins and Douglas P. Harvath, Assistant State’s Attorneys, 
of counsel), for the People. 
 
 
 
Justices 
 
JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with 
opinion. 
Chief Justice Garman and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Burke, 
and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
 
 
 
OPINION 
 
¶ 1 
 
Defendant, Anthony Boyce, was convicted in the circuit court of Cook County of 
attempted solicitation of murder. In this appeal, he contends that offense does not exist in 
Illinois. We reject that argument, and we now affirm the judgment of the appellate court. 2013 
IL App (1st) 102318-U. 
 
¶ 2 
 
 
 
 
STATUTES INVOLVED 
¶ 3 
 
Section 8-1.1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/8-1.1 (West 2008)) provides in 
pertinent part: 
“Solicitation of Murder. (a) A person commits solicitation of murder when, with the 
intent that the offense of first degree murder be committed, he commands, encourages 
or requests another to commit that offense. 
 
(b) Penalty. Solicitation of murder is a Class X felony and a person convicted of 
solicitation of murder shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of not 
less than 15 years and not more than 30 years ***.” 
¶ 4 
 
Section 8-4 of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/8-4 (West 2008)) provides: 
“Attempt. 
 
(a) Elements of the Offense. 
 
A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he 
does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense. 
 
 
* * * 
 
(c) Sentence. 
 
 
 
 
* * * 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
 
(2) the sentence for attempt to commit a Class X felony is the sentence for a 
Class 1 felony[.]” 
 
¶ 5 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
¶ 6 
 
Defendant, who was serving a sentence of natural life in prison for a prior murder, mailed a 
series of letters that were intercepted and opened by prison officials. Based on the contents of 
the letters, defendant was charged with one count of solicitation of murder and one count of 
attempt solicitation of murder. 
¶ 7 
 
The State charged defendant with solicitation and attempt solicitation on a “request” 
theory. In the first count of the indictment, it was alleged that defendant, “with the intent that 
the offense of First Degree Murder be committed, to wit: that an unidentified drug addict be 
killed, *** requested that Xavier Tripp commit the offense of First Degree Murder of the 
unidentified drug addict” in violation of section 8-1.1(a) of the Criminal Code. In the second 
count, the State alleged that defendant, “with the intent that the offense of First Degree Murder 
be committed, to wit: that an unidentified drug addict be killed, *** mailed a request to Xavier 
Tripp, requesting that Xavier Tripp commit the offense of First Degree Murder of the 
unidentified drug addict” in violation of section 8-4(a) of the Criminal Code. 
¶ 8 
 
Subsequently, defendant filed a motion to dismiss count I of the indictment. In that motion, 
defendant argued “to be found guilty of the crime of solicitation, the defendant must have 
actually communicated to the person allegedly solicited. *** A command, encouragement, or 
request cannot be made if no one is there to receive it. Thus, an incomplete communication—a 
message that was never received by its intended recipient—cannot be a solicitation.” 
¶ 9 
 
Defendant observed that there was no Illinois case law on point; however, he noted that 
other jurisdictions had considered the issue and had “concluded that solicitation requires a 
completed communication.” Defendant cited State v. Andujar, 899 A.2d 1209, 1219 (R.I. 
2006) (recognizing that “defendant’s conduct was culpable enough to warrant prosecution,” 
but the “proper vehicle” would be a charge of attempted solicitation, rather than solicitation); 
People v. Saephanh, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 910, 915-17 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that 
“solicitation requires a completed communication,” but rejecting defendant’s contention that 
“he is guilty of no crime,” finding that “[a]ttempted solicitation of murder is a crime in 
California”); State v. Lee, 804 P.2d 1208, 1210-11 (Or. Ct. App. 1991) (concluding “that a 
completed communication is required to prove the crime of solicitation” but finding no new 
trial was required “[b]ecause the trial court found defendant guilty of acts constituting 
attempted solicitation”); State v. Cotton, 790 P.2d 1050, 1052-55 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) 
(holding that a completed communication is required for a solicitation conviction, but 
suggesting that the solicitor may be prosecuted for an attempt to solicit). 
¶ 10 
 
Defendant contended: “The same reasoning should apply here. As in Saephanh and 
Andujar, the plain language of the Illinois statute requires that a communication be received in 
order to complete the offense of solicitation.” Defendant also observed that the appellate courts 
in Lee (Oregon) and Cotton (New Mexico) had “noted that their penal codes, although partially 
adopting the Model Penal Code (MPC) definition of solicitation,” had “specifically omitted the 
section of the MPC definition that would criminalize uncommunicated solicitation[,]” and 
defendant suggested that, though Illinois had “substantially adopted its solicitation statute 
from the MPC, including the ‘commands, encourages, or requests’ language,” Illinois had 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
“declined to adopt the section of the MPC that would proscribe uncommunicated 
solicitation[,]” thus demonstrating that “the statute does in fact require a completed solicitation 
for the offense of solicitation.” 
¶ 11 
 
Defendant concluded that “the charge of Solicitation of Murder should be dismissed” and 
the “charge of Attempt to Solicitation should be the subject of a trial.” He admitted that he 
wrote and sent the letters; he disputed only “that the content of the letters constitutes an 
attempted solicitation.” The State chose to nol-pros the solicitation charge and proceed on the 
attempt charge alone.1 
¶ 12 
 
Defendant then filed a “trial memorandum of law with respect to the charge of attempt 
solicitation of murder. In that memorandum, defendant argued, inter alia: 
“This crime is an impermissible stacking of double inchoate crimes. Convictions of this 
crime and other double inchoate crimes have been invalidated and reversed in 
numerous federal and state courts. Moreover, the crime of attempt solicitation of 
murder is a frustration of the legislature’s intent. A careful analysis of the statutes 
shows that the legislature never intended for such an attempt solicitation to be an 
offense. Furthermore, the crime of attempt solicitation of murder is logically absurd. 
Finally, the attempt statute is void for vagueness as applied because it combines the 
elements of three crimes and does not offer a person of ordinary intelligence a 
reasonable opportunity to know what activity is prohibited.” 
The parties proceeded to a bench trial on the attempt charge, and defendant was found guilty. 
In his posttrial motion, defendant reiterated some of the points raised in his trial memorandum, 
concluding that “the crime of Attempt Solicitation of Murder does not exist.” The circuit court 
denied the motion, and defendant appealed. 
¶ 13 
 
The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction for attempted solicitation of murder, 
concluding “that defendant was not convicted of a non-existent offense.” 2013 IL App (1st) 
102318-U, ¶ 40. In so holding, the appellate court reasoned that the lack of specific attempt 
language within the statutory definitions of solicitation and solicitation of murder is indicative 
of the legislature’s intent for the general attempt statute to apply to the offense of solicitation of 
murder. 2013 IL App (1st) 102318-U, ¶ 40. 
 
¶ 14 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS 
¶ 15 
 
Our primary objective in construing a statutory scheme is to ascertain and give effect to the 
intent of the legislature. The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the language of the 
statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100, ¶ 13. In the 
event there is ambiguity, the rule of lenity requires that it be resolved in a manner that favors 
the defendant; however, “this rule must not be stretched so far as to defeat the legislature’s 
intent.” People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569, 581 (2006). In the course of statutory construction, we 
may consider the reason for the law, the problems sought to be remedied, the purposes to be 
achieved, and the consequences of construing the statute one way or another. We presume that 
                                                 
 
1The State’s action appears to reflect its position in this appeal. In this appeal, the State asserts: “By 
its plain language, Illinois’s solicitation of murder statute expressly requires that the words of 
solicitation successfully be communicated for the offense to be complete.” 
 
 
- 5 - 
 
the legislature did not intend to create absurd, inconvenient, or unjust results. Hunter, 2013 IL 
114100, ¶ 13; People v. Jackson, 2011 IL 110615, ¶ 12. 
¶ 16 
 
As noted, section 8-1.1(a) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/8-1.1(a) (West 2008)) 
provides that “[a] person commits solicitation of murder when, with the intent that the offense 
of first degree murder be committed, he commands, encourages or requests another to commit 
that offense.” Solicitation of murder is a Class X felony. 720 ILCS 5/8-1.1(b) (West 2008). 
Although the standard period of incarceration for a Class X felony is 6 to 30 years (730 ILCS 
5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2008)), the legislature has mandated that a person convicted of solicitation 
of murder is subject to a higher minimum of 15 years in prison. 720 ILCS 5/8-1.1(b) (West 
2008). 
¶ 17 
 
“A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any 
act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” 720 ILCS 
5/8-4(a) (West 2008). “[T]he general attempt provision is ordinarily applicable to all 
offenses,” however, “[w]here application of the attempt provision to a principal offense creates 
an inherent impossibility, the offense cannot exist.” People v. Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d 470, 476 
(2003), overruled on other grounds by People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 516-21 (2005). 
Moreover, the appellate court has held (see People v. Harding, 401 Ill. App. 3d 482 (2010)), 
and we agree, that the general attempt statute is inapplicable where the legislature intends that 
the more specific crime subsume an attempt, “and that such legislative intent is shown by the 
inclusion of explicit ‘attempt’ language in the definition of the specific offense.” Harding, 401 
Ill. App. 3d at 487 (because “attempt” language was included in the child abduction statute, the 
court concluded the legislature meant to preclude application of the general attempt statute to 
defendant’s actions). 
¶ 18 
 
We begin with an examination of the plain language of section 8-1.1(a), which provides 
that the offense of solicitation of murder is committed “when, with the intent that the offense of 
first degree murder be committed, he commands, encourages or requests another to commit 
that offense.” 720 ILCS 5/8-1.1(a) (West 2008). In this case, defendant’s intent is not in 
dispute, so the next point of analysis—before we consider whether attempted solicitation of 
murder is an offense in Illinois, and whether defendant committed it—is to ascertain what 
conduct is necessary to commit the principal offense of solicitation. 
¶ 19 
 
Our solicitation statutes state that a person commits solicitation when he “commands, 
encourages or requests another” to commit the principal offense. Legislative intent is easily 
discerned, from the plain meaning of the statutory phraseology, when solicitor and solicitee are 
communicating verbally in real time; however, the intent of the legislature is not so clearly 
expressed when applied to letters that do not reach the intended recipient. 
¶ 20 
 
On the one hand, it is reasonable to argue that defendant, by posting the letters for delivery 
in the prison mail, did all he could do, within the written medium and the means available to 
him for transmission, to “request” that another person commit murder, which is what is 
seemingly required under the terms of section 8-1.1(a) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 
5/8-1.1(a) (West 2008)) to commit solicitation of murder. Defendant’s criminal intent is 
established whether or not the letters reach the intended recipient. The danger presented by 
defendant’s conduct is the same, whether or not the letters are fortuitously intercepted. 
¶ 21 
 
On the other hand, one could also reasonably argue that defendant has not requested that 
another commit murder where the letters of solicitation never reach the intended recipient. In 
 
 
- 6 - 
 
other words, defendant has made a request, but it is not a request of another, unless it reaches 
the other. Much as a defendant who fires a shot intending to kill another does not commit 
murder unless the bullet fatally strikes the intended target, a defendant who intends to solicit 
the commission of an offense, and dispatches a letter for that purpose, is not guilty of the 
completed offense of solicitation unless the letter reaches the intended recipient and conveys 
the inducing criminal request. As evinced by the cases defendant cited in the circuit court in 
support of his motion to dismiss the solicitation charge, that view is far and away the prevailing 
view among those jurisdictions that have considered this issue, though there are some minor 
features in those statutes that arguably distinguish them from our own. 
¶ 22 
 
We consider whether a statute is ambiguous in the context of the facts of the case before us. 
See People v. Hicks, 164 Ill. 2d 218, 223 (1995) (finding “no ambiguity *** in the 
extended-term sentencing provision as applied to the facts of the case presently before us”); 
People v. Fabing, 143 Ill. 2d 48, 58 (1991) (concluding that “defendant may properly be 
convicted under the Act, even though there exists some ambiguity as to whether the Act may 
be properly applied under a different set of facts”); People v. Salley, 373 Ill. App. 3d 106, 
111-12 (2007) (distinguishing another appellate decision that found the statute “ ‘ambiguous’ 
only in the context of the facts of that case”). The language of a statute is ambiguous if it is 
susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. People ex rel. Department of Public 
Aid v. Smith, 212 Ill. 2d 389, 397 (2004). We conclude Illinois’s solicitation statutes are 
ambiguous when applied to the facts of this case. Where a statute is ambiguous, “we must go 
beyond the statute itself and resort to extrinsic aids of statutory construction to determine the 
legislature’s intent, which include consideration of the statute’s purpose, necessity for the law 
and policy concerns that led to its passage.” Ranjha v. BJBP Properties, Inc., 2013 IL App 
(1st) 122155, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206, 214 (2005)). 
¶ 23 
 
In that endeavor, we turn, first, to the committee comments to the Criminal Code of 1961. 
Although the committee comments to section 8-1 provide no interpretational guidance with 
respect to the facts of this case, the concluding paragraph of the comments to “Title III. 
Specific Offenses, Part A. Inchoate Offenses” provides at least some direction: 
 
“In view of the comprehensive and exhaustive review of the law on all three 
[inchoate] offenses in Model Penal Code comments and appendices ***, no attempt 
will be made here to discuss in detail the many questions involved, and how they are 
treated in the statutes and case law of the various jurisdictions. The Model Penal Code 
adequately supplies such detailed discussion.” 720 ILCS Ann. 5/art. 8, Committee 
Comments—1961, at 577 (Smith-Hurd 2002). 
Obviously, the drafters of Illinois’s solicitation statute were aware of the treatment of that 
offense in the MPC. We look, then, to that section of the MPC. 
¶ 24 
 
Section 5.02 of the MPC (Model Penal Code § 5.02 (1985)) defines criminal solicitation as 
follows: 
 
“(1) Definition of Solicitation. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime 
if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, 
encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct that would 
constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or would establish his 
complicity in its commission or attempted commission. 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
 
(2) Uncommunicated Solicitation. It is immaterial under Subsection (1) of this 
Section that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a 
crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication.” 
As defendant observed in his motion to dismiss count I of the indictment, though the General 
Assembly “substantially adopted [the] solicitation statute from the MPC, including the 
‘commands, encourages, or requests’ language,” it “declined to adopt the section of the MPC 
that would proscribe uncommunicated solicitation.” Like the courts in Lee and Cotton (Lee, 
804 P.2d at 1210; Cotton, 790 P.2d at 1052-55) we ascribe significance to that omission. We 
believe it signals legislative intent that uncommunicated solicitations are not to be treated as 
completed solicitations. Thus, we conclude, where a letter is employed as the means of 
solicitation, the letter must actually reach the intended recipient for the crime of solicitation to 
be complete. That result, we observe, is in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority 
from other jurisdictions, as expressed in Andujar, Saephanh, Lee and Cotton. 
¶ 25 
 
However, we reject defendant’s contentions that he is guilty of nothing, and that the crime 
of attempted solicitation does not exist in Illinois. Initially, we disagree with defendant’s 
assertion that the crime of attempted solicitation is logically absurd. The well-reasoned 
analyses of the courts in Andujar, Saephanh, Lee and Cotton refute that claim. Though all held 
that letters soliciting the crimes in question had to reach and be read by the intended recipients 
for the crime of solicitation to be complete, they nonetheless all determined that convictions 
for attempted solicitation would be proper where the letters were sent by defendants, but were 
not received by the addressees. Andujar, 899 A.2d at 1219; Saephanh, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 
915-17; Lee, 804 P.2d at 1210-11; Cotton, 790 P.2d at 1052-55. See also People v. Bloom, 133 
N.Y.S. 708, 710-11 (1912) (employing an analysis suggesting that the foregoing outcome has 
been prevalent for more than a century). 
¶ 26 
 
Commentators agree that a charge of attempt would be reasonable and proper in this 
circumstance. Although the drafters of the MPC chose to incorporate an attempt to solicit in 
the substantive charge of solicitation itself, they nonetheless recognized that a charge for 
attempted solicitation would, logically, stand on its own in a separate prosecution and that 
public policy considerations warranted criminal responsibility in either case. The MPC 
comments observe: 
“Where, under the law existing prior to the drafting of this section of the Model Penal 
Code, it was criminal to solicit another to commit a crime, liability attached even 
though the communication failed to reach the party intended to be solicited, although 
generally in the latter instance the solicitor had to be prosecuted for an attempt to 
solicit. Under Subsection (2), conduct ‘designed to effect’ communication of the 
culpable message is sufficient to constitute criminal solicitation and there is therefore 
no need for a crime of attempted solicitation. 
 
*** The crucial manifestation of dangerousness lies in the endeavor to 
communicate the incriminating message to another person, it being wholly fortuitous 
whether the message was actually received. Liability should attach, therefore, even 
though the message is not received by the contemplated recipient ***.” Model Penal 
Code and Commentaries (Official Draft and Revised Comments) § 5.02, at 380-81 
(1985). 
 
 
- 8 - 
 
¶ 27 
 
In his treatise, Professor Wayne LaFave also rejects the notion that a defendant, in this 
situation, should be guilty of nothing: 
 
“What if the solicitor’s message never reaches the person intended to be solicitated, 
as where an intermediary fails to pass on the communication or the solicitor’s letter is 
intercepted before it reaches the addressee? The act is nonetheless criminal, although it 
may be that the solicitor must be prosecuted for an attempt to solicit on such facts. 
Liability properly attaches under these circumstances, as the solicitor has manifested 
his dangerousness and should not escape punishment because of a fortuitous event 
beyond his control.” 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 11.1(c), at 198 
(2d ed. 2003). 
LaFave notes that various state solicitation statutes explicitly subsume attempted solicitation 
within the substantive offense of solicitation by including “attempt” language within the 
definition of the principal offense. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law 
§ 11.1(c), at 198 n.93 (2d ed. 2003) (citing statutes in Delaware, Georgia, New York, Iowa, 
North Dakota, Virginia, Maine, Texas, New Mexico, and Tennessee).2 
¶ 28 
 
Our solicitation statute does not contain “attempt” language. However, what that means is 
that we assume our general attempt provision is applicable, absent inherent impossibility. 
Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d at 476. There is no inherent impossibility here. Our discussion heretofore 
demonstrates that courts and commentators alike have recognized the logic of holding a 
defendant criminally responsible, either via the principal, substantive offense of solicitation, or 
by means of attempt provisions, for solicitation that, by reason of mere fortuity, does not reach 
the intended recipient. Such a construction of our statutes, as they relate to criminal 
solicitation, is neither “illogically absurd,” nor does it result in “impermissible stacking of 
double inchoate crimes,” as defendant contends. 
¶ 29 
 
Defendant contends, inter alia, that the mere placement of statutes defining attempt and 
solicitation in a common section entitled “Inchoate Offenses,” is sufficient to signal legislative 
intent that there be no offense of attempted solicitation of murder. Moreover, choosing to 
characterize solicitation as equivalent to attempt, he advances the contention that there can be 
no “attempt to attempt.” 
¶ 30 
 
With respect to the former contention, we find the umbrella categorization of both 
solicitation and attempt in “Part A. Inchoate Offenses” insufficient to bear the weight that 
defendant places on it. We note that attempt and solicitation also fall under “Title III. Specific 
Offenses.” Illinois’s attempt statute provides that “[a] person commits an attempt when, with 
intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward 
the commission of that offense.” (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2008). 
Solicitation of murder is a “specific offense” to which attempt should be applicable. 
¶ 31 
 
As for defendant’s second contention, it would seem obvious that there would be no need 
for a statute proscribing solicitation if the legislature meant for statutory attempt provisions to 
                                                 
 
2One example of a statute’s incorporation of attempt language can be found in section 102(h) of the 
Illinois Controlled Substances Act, where “delivery” is defined as “the actual, constructive or 
attempted transfer of possession of a controlled substance.” (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 570/102(h) 
(West 2008). A second example can be found in Illinois’s child abduction statute, where the offense is 
committed when, in pertinent part, the defendant “lures or attempts to lure a child.” (Emphasis added.) 
720 ILCS 5/10-5(b)(10) (West 2008). 
 
 
- 9 - 
 
comprehensively apply. As the MPC comments observe, “each of the two inchoate offenses 
presents problems not pertinent to the other.” Model Penal Code and Commentaries (Official 
Draft and Revised Comments) § 5.02, at 372-73 (1985). See also Cotton, 790 P.2d at 1055 
(“The offenses of solicitation and attempt are analytically distinct in their elements because 
solicitation unlike attempt, is in the nature of preparation to commit an offense, rather than an 
act or acts in furtherance of the offense attempted.”). Of course, if the solicitation statute were 
construed as subsuming uncommunicated solicitation, or revised to that effect, there would be 
no suggestion of an “attempt to attempt”—the conduct would simply be solicitation, regardless 
of the fortuity of interception. 
¶ 32 
 
We acknowledge defendant’s argument that our recognition of an offense of attempted 
solicitation, generally, may cause sentencing uncertainty in other contexts, and his suggestion 
that this indicates the legislature did not intend to create that offense. Specifically, defendant 
points to the penalty provision of the general solicitation statute (720 ILCS 5/8-1(b) (West 
2008)), which cross-references subsection (c) of section 8-4 of the Criminal Code for purposes 
of sentencing (720 ILCS 5/8-4(c) (West 2008)). Defendant concedes that there is no problem 
in this case as the statute defining the offense of solicitation of murder identifies that offense as 
a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/8-1.1(b) (West 2008)), which would, by application of the 
Criminal Code’s attempt provision (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2008)), and the penalty 
provisions therein (720 ILCS 5/8-4(c) (West 2008)), result in a clearly defined Class 1 felony 
and sentence for attempted solicitation of murder. There is no uncertainty here. Any sentencing 
issues pertinent to offenses not presently before this court will have to wait for another day. 
 
¶ 33 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
¶ 34 
 
In sum, we believe the legislature did not intend that a defendant, in these circumstances, 
escape criminal liability simply because the prison authorities were vigilant enough to 
intercept his letters before they reached the intended recipient. Neither Illinois’s statutory 
scheme nor case law requires that result. Defendant was properly convicted of attempted 
solicitation of murder. 
¶ 35 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court. 
 
¶ 36 
 
Affirmed.