the morning honors on first may please the court i am assistant attorney general bo's'n fisher from the office of the on attorney general for the appellant in this case or after roger walker after direct appeal illinois provides a prisoner a diverse menu of vehicles for collateral attack against his conviction and sentence there section two fourteen zero one of the civil practices at their post conviction petitions for constitutional claims and one prisoner has a claim that he has not in could not have in vindicating his claim against society's interest in the finality of criminal convictions and then there's t d s which is an extraordinary remedy that has virtually no procedural bars he is exists only to correct the very specific situation in which a person is illegally deprived of his liberty and in other words the teenager with no authority and that means something more than mere legal error at trial even of a constitutional magnitude requires either that the trial court have had no jurisdiction or that there be some post conviction a crime thing titling the defendant to media release from prison there are some policy arguments why this should be set up as mentioned there are essentially no restrictions on the number and timing of habeas complaints this is because the old great writ as this court discussed many years ago and cassidy existed to correct a very specific and never acceptable circumstance in some in which someone is illegally deprived of his liberty to open this vehicle unbound by restrictions on successive ness and timeliness to any claim attacking the way in which a prisoner was tried and sentenced would destroy the balance between a prisoner's interest in vindicating its right and society's interest in finality in this case alone the prisoner has filed a direct appeal a petition for relief from judgment and three separate k v s complaints petition for relief from judgment under section t exceptions to their procedural limitations to allow a prisoner to bring a valid claim that he has not and could not have previously advanced thus the scheme as a whole allows a prisoner to vindicate any claim but the procedure is limited whereas the claim that once the tension is illegal may be brought free from these limitations contrary rule mean that no only criminal conviction is never final contrary would also be contrary to the plain an unambiguous language of article ten which sits in a prison or may be discharged only if an event has taken place entitle him to release the time prisoner filed his hideous complain and the state its motion to dismiss no such a bank had yet taken place allowing the heaviest court to article ten but also this court's president in goes or interpret the language of article ten this court held in baker and barney he is not a substitute for direct appeal and it can not be used to correct errors that might have occurred a trial even ones that affect constitutional rights now this court has held and recently affirmed brown for example that avoids sentence may be challenged at any time however the right vehicle must be use for cases where to use this court's language for many years ago the judgment is absolutely void which this court and was the five described as a case where the trial court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction contrary to the prisoner's argument is accumulation of good conduct credit in this case does not constitute a post conviction of current that would satisfy the requirements of behaviors from point even under the prisoner's erroneous view these credits only entitle  immediate release if his consecutive sentence for attempted murder is found to be invalid contrary to the prisoner's argument the alleged incorrectness of this consecutive sentence for attempted murder is not a factual allegation but rather a legal conclusion and thus it does not need to be accepted as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss and as discussed the validity of his of this legal conclusion is exactly the kind of determination that he is court is not empowered to me also contrary to the prisoner's discussion of of our argument the state is not arguing that the prisoner has forfeited or waived his claims because he failed to raise them in a prior proceeding but rather that these claims are never cognizable on t v s review to the extent that any procedural bar such as forfeiture would now preclude consideration of prisoner's claims worried bring them in a different collateral attack that could have been avoided had he properly raised his claims on direct appeal maximum term and good conduct that is not counted in determining whether the time in which he may be legally detained has expired this is demonstrated by the remedy that's available under a b s because the only remedy under havey is is immediate once he is if there were merit to his claim once his attempted murder sentence or the consecutive nature of the attempt murder sentence were found to be improper d o c would have to determine the prisoner's new release date based on his accumulation of good conduct credit and his remaining sentence because the only remedy available under havey is his immediate release from prison it would put the t v s court in a position of not only determining the merits of his claim which would i don't believe so your honor in it he could have challenged the appropriateness of his consecutive sentence in a two fourteen zero one or to the extent that it raises a constitutional claim in a post conviction proceeding and if he had succeeded on his claim d o c would have determined his new out date based on the remaining sentence there's no reason to suspect that if he had sufficient good conduct credit to entitle him to release that  wouldn't have reached that conclusion and released him but if you see reached a contrary conclusion and prisoner objected to that conclusion he could have challenge it on mandamus action as the defendant in franzen did before th i believe that it's more than just a question of of the title because actions that are allowed to challenge errors and constitutional errors in the way in which a defendant is tried and sentenced have  restrictions which this court is a bowl recognized existed because of the state's interest and and society's interest in the finality of criminal convictions that limit the time in number of appeals and because they're being detained beyond the duration of their sentence good conduct credits are analogous to m s r when this court discussed m s r and barney it found revoked without proper proceedings in front of the prisoner review board and those determinations can be challenged in court through hate me through a mandamus action but until a prisoner is release yes your honor is the prisoner's claims that he had a pro se petition in which he claimed that his consecutive sentences violated one act one crime  they don't but even if they did that would not make his sentence void but rather void a ball and his amended complaint filed by counsel really just challenges the discretion of the judge to issue consecutive sentences and again would not render his conviction void but even even if it did render it void in the way in which a sentence that for example  exceeds the statutory maximum creates a void sentence that's not the kind of void sentence that can be a challenge to procreate when he is and again the remedy available demonstrates that because the only remedy available is immediate release the court is put in a position to make determinations that by statute are first set to the department of corrections and the prisoner review board  plain language of article ten also demonstrates that the hades relief is not yet available to prisoner it states that a prisoner shall not be discharged unless the time during which he may be legally detained has  organised correctly if we are green with you on the thirty years as we don't get to the good conduct credible so correct i believe that there are several independent reasons that are sufficient to deny  second the time during which he may be legally detained has not yet expired even excepting is allegations as true and third his claim would not actually even if iraq and even if it could be brought in  no post conviction occurrence and that he was had not yet served his maximum sentence before the merits of the claim and whether it was void avoidable and so forth would have even been reached  i don't actually believe your honor that hey this is a proper vehicle for challenging mandate i think that the vehicle pursued in franzen is the proper vehicle which was a mandamus it titian  case as mentioned the prisoner would not be in a situation in this case or is good conduct pros would be revoked without due process and proceedings he could pursue friends and demonstrate that that the defendant relies on friends and demonstrates that that there are remedies that can be pursued even in the absence of haiti as in fact that shrew in the bigger picture to the system as a whole balances these interests of allowing a prisoner to vindicate any valid claim as long as he brings it at the proper time and place and against the state's interests and eventually having some finality on its criminal convictions to allow hideous courts to create their own post conviction occurrences or to consider a t v as complaint before the time during which a prisoner maybe we could be detained has expired would be to create a new open ended collateral attack and convictions  against the plain on ambiguous language of article time as well as sound policy considerations they restrict a b s to situations in which a prisoner is illegally detained of his liberty in other words the trial court was without jurisdiction or some advantage occurred since trial then titles a prisoner to his immediate release he is not an appropriate vehicle for any other plans including the ones that are raised by this prisoner must the court has any further questions for these reasons as well as those stayed in the states brief status spectrally requests that the court reversed the judgment of the appellate court of illinois fourth district and reinstate the circuit court of livingston county's judgment dismissing the prisoner's  relief first mr beecham has earned enough good conduct credits to be immediately releasable the state's argument that good kind of credit should be ignored in the hay vs action contravenes all statutory and case l revokable is in inapplicable to the situation regarding good conduct credits and most are is actually considered to be a period of term where a prisoner is still in confinement or under custody of the of the department of corrections good conduct credits however is a period of term which would eliminate the period of imprisonment and this case mr beecham has alleged that he has actually accumulated enough good conduct credits to surpass the amount of time that he should being imprisoned in addition to the three years any additional mandatory supervised release so even though the revoke a ball there are two totally different totally different things so that if there revokable there it is can release the be considered certain in this case event of the thirty year sentence being forward with respect to the revoke ability of good conduct credits there are specified procedures and the rules and regulations of the department of correction which must be followed before those can be revoked for example to the i o c he can't step up tomorrow and say well we're going to provoke all of his good conduct credit there must be a basis for doing so first  addition any disciplinary report must have been filed within fourteen days so they can't go back in time even with the with the possibility it's released certainly here in the event of thirty days and thirty years  be good yes releases certain here because he has alleged that he has enough good conduct credits they have not been revoked there's no basis to assume that they may have been revoked so release would be certain based applicable and certainly the state makes a big point of the fact that good kind of crowded should not be considered on hey b s claims of course it it appears that that would be something that would have to be developed at the trial level just based on petitioners amended petition and allegations that his good conduct credits i mean that his that his consecutive sentences void would basically take that outside of the realm of being able to determine that at this point so how certain is always when he files when he's filed when all these questions are well that's that's the thing that has to be developed in the record unfortunately based on the record we have it would be released if we would be certain because his consecutive sentences void it was imposed without following or conforming to  the sentencing statute which was in effect at the time there was no indication in the record for the rationale why consecutive sentence was imposed and th basis for such imposition has been or shout the basis for that imposition shall be set forth in the rocker did so because there's noncompliance with that sentencing statute and even in the case cited by by the state well in this situation there are some there are definitely extenuating circumstances that would make this an instance where there are overriding considerations to be   the sentencing statute however this court has exercised of florida and other courts have have have recognized that pay vs corpus statute is somewhat flexible when when the when necessary to avoid certain injustices even in the case cited by the state baker video c which involved the which involved situation it didn't fall quite within the bounds of the pacific enumerated instances of discharge under section ten dash one twenty four however the court still decided to reach that issue did the court did say that this is not a substitute for appeal however the court means the decision to reach that issue regardless and there are other instances in which  courts have have extended or or perhaps reach to other areas such as the courts supervisory or supervisory authority when these circumstances merit that conviction or something has already happened it seems in this case the appellate court is directing the trial court to determine if something should happen and i think it's the state's argument and also just as garmin touched on this would this not significantly broaden the scope of the years and allow petitions or complacent any time in any amount of any number to raise issues that maybe someone forgot to raise earlier well if i the state would have its way in determining whether good conduct credits would be applicable to hay b s that would severely restrict any pay vs actions for example they would prisoners would be limited from bringing actions until their full maximum term of imprisonment could would be served so that i mean that is the one extreme in this situation however and i believe the state  their argument here suggested that perhaps application and of good conduct credits would entitle someone to immediate release that is not an enumerated circumstances under ten dash one twenty court has reviewed and hey vs another illinois courts have reviewed on hey b s claims that a statute is unconstitutional for example even though that itself is not one of the enumerated circumstances under ten dash one twenty four so there there is the overriding concern of opening it opening the doors to bringing a number of of potential claims of course in there have been in the limited circumstances where there have been certain concerns where the court has addressed and hey vs these other issues and in addition if perhaps if the state had taken the if perhaps of the onus was on the state in the first place to try to make sure that they closed any potential gabs that might have been there to begin with  maybe this wouldn't be here before the court so it's really not fair for mr beecher to have to now face potential additional thirty years of imprisonment and also claims by the state that he it they reversed and remanded it to the fir to the circuit court so that that determination can be made based on the record there was a possibility that according to the appellate court that the thirty year conviction was boy and based on the fact of other language in other cases by this court when there is none conformance with the statutory language the sentence as void now of course the the court of course the the state is a proponent of the bride use of the term void when it means imposition of a harsher penalt schild in that case the state argued that sentence was void because the court had not hear it here to the mandatory language of a statute regarding enhancement of a sentence but now here where the reverse scenario is and there's possibility of a lesser term now suddenly the the boy no longer has the same meaning so obviously there are circumstances where and in this case this mr beecham has allege that his sentence is void and he has set forth the factual basis he doesn't just set forth the legal conclusion he actually in his amended petition which is on the record at c seventy such for the statutory language and sets forth the bases for the for his his argument that his conviction consecutive sentences void in addition sets forth other factual allegations that his that  void if it fails to conform to statutory requirements that was a two thousand and seven case of this court and if you base it on that language the sentence would be void so perhaps perhaps in sermons instances there i mean i can't reconcile that the defense in that language however in this case mr beecham contends that his sentence is void and  and that there happens to be this gray area perhaps or flexibility in some instances where the court has reached the constitutional issues if we if we believe the analysis of brown that there was a sufficient possibility of considering the consecutive sentences void of course what it did say is it didn't have enough of a underlying rancor to be able to actually add value it on the merits like i've gone through most of my my arguments here that corpus is not a vehicle is not a substitute for for appeal even in those cases the courts have gone on to review the merits of of the claims  even in taylor v cohen the fifth district decision which the state has relied upon and which that which that court determined that maximum sentence must be expired even in that decision the court went on to review the validity of the statutory challenges and claims that he or the petitioner there had made so in summary defendant's underlying basis for its motion to dismiss is that mr beecham has not served his maximum possible sentence and we know the argument to be untenable however the state wants to play it both ways they want to advance on the one hand unsupported arguments which clearly do not fall within the statutory construct such as the argument that good kind of created should not be applied however on the other hand the state wants to argue that a statute must be strictly construed when it comes to the term void and as already discussed even in cases cited by the state where our overriding considerations are issue for just and fair result the court has addressed those issues furthermore the state does not dispute mr b jim's factual allegations that he has earned enough good conduct credits to overcome h sentencing term and has a star period nor do they discontinue the factual alaric the factual allegations underlying the argument regarding consecutive sentence and for these reasons and all the was think your honour's beginning i don't disagree that there is perhaps been some imprecision at times between the use of the term void voidable or even an earlier term that was often used in connection to a b s absolutely void  however it doesn't matter in this case because the claims raised by the prisoner in this case are simply knock out nizer bow under t d s for two reasons one because he has not yet served as maximum  sentence but to this belated to that because there has been no post conviction occurrence that would entitle him to is immediate release and though indeed a void sentence can be challenging a time the proper vehicle is necessary and in fact how shall provides a perfect example of that because in how shall while this court did hold that the defendant sentence was void the remedy was not his immediate release from prison but rather a proper sentence under the statutory guidelines that should have been in place at the time that he was sentenced which is of course not a remedy available u question justice freiman asked the determination of whether a prisoner has a cumulate enough good conduct credit to be entitled to his media release if only his murder sentence remain is one that hasn't been made yet but apartment of corrections because that's not the situation that they are currently confronted with and also the plain language of article ten further points to the need to wait until the maximum sentence has been served because the use of the term may there's no as if it's a factual allegation against the state's position that is not that that is in fact the legal conclusion that would be necessary to receive relief under any collateral attack against his conviction thus it doesn't have to be accepted as true for purposes of this appeal and as discussed in the people's briefs this was not two convictions based on one crime defendant in this case shot two people killing one of them injuring not a substitute for direct appeal of this court discuss the merits of that case this court of course has supervisory authority to do things that other courts in the state of illinois are not empowered to do  way it's i believe that there are sufficient facts in the record to determine the question of whether there's a one act one crime violation i don't sufficiently developed in part because if this claim were brought in a proper vehicle such as post in the action or to fortune no one there would be various claims of forfeiture and waiver and so forth that would have to be there would have to be considered and that haven't been briefed by either party here but additionally there are these two other grounds and make the claim in the states and you knock out nice of all  consideration under havey as complaint at all but any of those three grounds wouldn't fact be sufficient reason for this court to find that the prisoner was not entitled to say vs relief  or in answer to a question the us i think it's important to look at the plain language of article ten section ten one twenty four which was civically says that an event has taken place subsequent to condition which the state's position is does in fact require that the event has already occurred when the a b s complaint is filed and does not allow for the possibility of a v s court creating its own subsequent events to single subject violation another court in a proper vehicle would have to make the determination first that the statute was unconstitutional and further that there was not a statute that might the law might fall back to that would create a different sentencing structure in which the person might not be entitled to immediate release again the remedy makes clear that that only after that event has already occurred a court determining that a statute is unconstitutional and that people who were sentenced under oath are in fact entitle to immediate release would he be s b appropriate the proper course of proceedings in the prisoner's case with course have been to challenge his consecutive sentence using a appropriate vehicle whether it's two fourteen zero one perhaps the most appropriately in this case direct appeal and then if based on success on one of those collateral that addresses that never acceptable situation where the prisoners now held with no authority believe that covers all of the state's remaining points the court has no further