Illinois Official Reports

Supreme Court

Edwards v. Atterberry, 2019 IL 123370

Caption in Supreme

Court:

KENIN L. EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE MICHAEL L. 

ATTERBERRY et al., Respondents.

Docket No. 123370

Filed

Rehearing denied

February 22, 2019

May 20, 2019

Decision Under 

Review

Original action for writ of prohibition.

Judgment Writ denied.

Counsel on

Appeal

Robert J. Hanauer, of Hanauer Law Office, LLC, of Peoria, for 

petitioner.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (David L. Franklin, 

Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick, Daniel B. Lewin, and Joshua 

M. Schneider, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), 

for respondents.
- 2 -

Justices JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Thomas and Theis concurred in 

the judgment and opinion.

Justice Kilbride dissented, with opinion, joined by Justices Burke and 

Neville.

Justices Kilbride, Burke, and Neville dissented upon denial of 

rehearing, without opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 This is an original action for a writ of prohibition. Petitioner Kenin L. Edwards asks this 

court to issue an order to prohibit respondent Judge Michael L. Atterberry from conducting a 

sentencing hearing or any other action in the underlying criminal case.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Edwards was charged by information with two violations of the Timber Buyers Licensing 

Act (225 ILCS 735/1 et seq. (West 2016)). The information referred to each of these violations 

as constituting a Class A misdemeanor, which Edwards disputes. Edwards filed several pretrial 

motions, including motions to dismiss that, relevant here, contested the circuit court’s subjectmatter jurisdiction. The State was twice allowed to amend the information. The pertinent 

version of the information set forth the following counts. Count I charged Edwards with

“the offense of UNLAWFULLY ACTING AS A TIMBER BUYING AGENT FOR 

MULTIPLE LICENSED TIMBER BUYERS, in violation of SECTION 10 of ACT 

735 of CHAPTER 225 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes of said State and 

Administrative Rule SECTION 1535.1(b) of PART 1535 of SUB-CHAPTER d of 

CHPATER [sic] I of TITLE 17, pursuant to SECTION 1535.60(a) of PART 1535 of 

SUB-CHAPTER d of CHAPTER I of TITLE 17, in that the said defendant 

knowingly[1] acted as an authorized agent for multiple licensed timber buyers, being 

listed as an agent for timber buyer Trent Copelen and acted as agent for timber buyer 

Jonathan Luckett and represented himself as a timber buyer when attempting to enter 

into an agreement with Donald Cook.

Class A Misdemeanor”

Count II charged Edwards with: 

“the offense of UNLAWFULLY ACTING AS A TIMBER BUYING AGENT FOR 

MULTIPLE LICENSED TIMBER BUYERS, in violation of SECTION 10 of ACT 

735 of CHAPTER 225 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes of said State and 

Administrative Rule SECTION 1535.1(b) of PART 1535 of SUB-CHAPTER d of 

CHPATER[sic] I of TITLE 17, pursuant to SECTION 1535.60(a) of PART 1535 of 

1

The word “knowingly” was added by a handwritten addition in the right margin, dated “7-31-17” 

and initialed by State’s Attorney Ramon M. Escapa.
- 3 -

SUB-CHAPTER d of CHAPTER I of TITLE 17, in that the said defendant 

knowingly[2] acted as an authorized agent for multiple licensed timber buyers, being 

listed as an agent for timber buyer Trent Copelen and acted as an agent for timber buyer 

Jonathan Luckett in selling timber to Leroy Yoder of Plainview Pallet, Tom Farris of 

Farris Forest Products, John Peters of River City Hardwood, Inc., Norman Hochstetler 

of Oak Ridge Lumber, LLC, and Michael Eichen of Eichen Lumber Company, Inc.

Class A Misdemeanor”

A jury found Edwards guilty of both counts.

¶ 4 Thereafter, Edwards filed a motion for a supervisory order and for leave to file a complaint 

for a writ of prohibition. See Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 383, 381 (eff. July 1, 2017). This court denied the 

motion for a supervisory order but allowed Edwards leave to file a complaint for a writ of 

prohibition. Pending disposition of the complaint, this court stayed the circuit court case.

¶ 5 ANALYSIS

¶ 6 Edwards seeks to prohibit respondent, Judge Michael L. Atterberry, from conducting a 

sentencing hearing or from taking any other action in the underlying criminal case.3 Edwards 

claims that, because the information charged him with violating regulations and not a statute 

defining a criminal offense, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, Edwards 

frames the issue as whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction in a case alleging a regulatory 

violation as a crime. We begin by setting forth the pertinent law and requirements relating to a 

writ of prohibition. 

¶ 7 Pursuant to article VI, section 4(a), of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, this court may 

exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to prohibition. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 4(a); 

People ex rel. Foreman v. Nash, 118 Ill. 2d 90, 96 (1987). A writ of prohibition is an 

extraordinary remedy. Nash, 118 Ill. 2d at 96. “A writ of prohibition lies to prevent a judge 

from acting where he has no jurisdiction to act or to prevent a judicial act which is beyond the 

scope of a judge’s legitimate jurisdictional authority.” Daley v. Hett, 113 Ill. 2d 75, 80 (1986). 

¶ 8 A writ of prohibition will not issue unless four requirements are met. Zaabel v. Konetski, 

209 Ill. 2d 127, 131-32 (2004). First, the action to be prohibited must be of a judicial or quasijudicial nature. Id. at 132. Second, the writ must be directed against a tribunal of inferior 

jurisdiction. Id. Third, “the action to be prohibited must be outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction 

or, if within its jurisdiction, beyond its legitimate authority.” Id. Fourth, there must not be any 

other adequate remedy available to the petitioner. Id. But see Nash, 118 Ill. 2d at 97 (where 

the issue presented is sufficiently important to the administration of justice, this court may 

issue a writ of prohibition even if all of the aforementioned requirements are not met).

¶ 9 The first and second requirements are not disputed. The parties do contest the third and 

fourth requirements. However, we need only address the fourth requirement, given the 

2As with count I, “knowingly” was added by hand, dated “7-31-17,” and initialed by State’s 

Attorney Ramon M. Escapa.

3

Judge Scott J. Butler is also named as a respondent. He apparently handled pretrial motions before 

the case was transferred to Judge Atterberry. Edwards does not specify what exactly he seeks to prohibit 

Judge Butler from doing. Because respondents’ brief was filed in both names, we will refer to 

respondents rather than respondent.
- 4 -

circumstances of this case. See id. at 95 (first examining whether writs of mandamus or 

prohibition or supervisory orders would constitute appropriate remedies in that case).

¶ 10 As noted, the fourth requirement needed for a writ of prohibition is that there must not be 

any other adequate remedy available to the petitioner. Zaabel, 209 Ill. 2d at 132. Respondents 

point out that Edwards filed a timely posttrial motion. Specifically, Edwards filed a combined 

motion for entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion for a new trial, and a 

motion in arrest of judgment, pursuant to sections 116-1 and 116-2 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure of 1963. 725 ILCS 5/116-1, 116-2 (West 2016). However, before the circuit court 

could rule on that motion, Edwards filed a motion seeking both a supervisory order and leave 

to file a complaint for prohibition in this court. We allowed the motion in part. Specifically, 

this court denied Edwards’s motion for a supervisory order but allowed him leave to file the 

complaint for a writ of prohibition. This court stayed circuit court proceedings pending 

disposition of the prohibition action. We now turn to the parties’ arguments relating to the 

fourth requirement for a writ of prohibition.

¶ 11 Edwards argues that no other adequate remedy exists and that the case could be resolved 

simply and expeditiously on jurisdictional grounds via a writ of prohibition. Edwards suggests 

that it would be futile to await the circuit court’s disposition of his posttrial motion because 

respondents previously ruled that the circuit court had jurisdiction and, over Edwards’s 

objection, proceeded to trial. Edwards notes that he could be sentenced to jail. He adds that 

suspension or revocation of a timber buyer’s license may occur upon a finding of guilt by a 

court of law for a violation of part 1535 of Title 17, Timber Buyer Licensing and Harvest Fees. 

17 Ill. Adm. Code 1535.60 (2003). Edwards represents that the Department of Natural 

Resources has already initiated proceedings against his license based upon the jury verdict 

below. He argues that Zaabel demonstrates that he “would be irremediably harmed if he were 

required to press his claim that the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction within the 

normal appellate process.” 209 Ill. 2d at 132. 

¶ 12 Respondents maintain that Edwards could obtain relief on his posttrial motion or otherwise 

on appeal. As to Edwards’s asserted reasons for why the normal appellate process is 

inadequate, respondents note that potentially facing the collateral consequences of a conviction 

pending appeal is true of every criminal case. Additionally, respondents comment that Edwards 

does not explain why the potential loss of his license recommends resolving his claims here 

instead of in the appellate court. Respondents observe that Edwards might receive probation. 

See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55(d) (West 2016) (probation may be imposed for Class A 

misdemeanors). However, if Edwards is sentenced to imprisonment, respondents note that, 

pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 609 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013), Edwards may seek a stay of 

his sentence on appeal. With these arguments in mind, we next briefly discuss a case that 

reached this court under somewhat similar circumstances. 

¶ 13 In Moore v. Strayhorn, 114 Ill. 2d 538, 540 (1986), this court granted the petitioner, Moore, 

leave to file a complaint for an original writ of mandamus or prohibition or a supervisory order 

to direct the circuit judge to vacate the portion of the sentence that denied him credit for time 

served. This court concluded that

“leave to file that petition was improvidently granted because Moore should have been 

left to his alternative remedy of appealing the sentencing order to our appellate court. 

Applications to this court for original actions of mandamus and prohibition or for 
- 5 -

supervisory orders should not be allowed as a way of circumventing the normal 

appellate process.” Id.

Nonetheless, this court elected to exercise its discretionary supervisory authority to resolve the 

matter in light of judicial economy and because Moore’s time to appeal had already expired. 

Id.

¶ 14 As in Moore, we determine that Edwards should have been left to his alternative remedy—

the normal appellate process. We reject Edwards’s argument that he lacks any other adequate 

remedy. Indeed, Edwards has a posttrial motion pending in the circuit court. Even if that motion 

is unsuccessful, Edwards could obtain relief on appeal to the appellate court. Beyond that, 

Edwards could petition for leave to appeal to this court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2018). 

Critically, and unlike in Moore, Edwards’s time to appeal has not expired. Quite simply, the 

entire extent of the normal appellate process is yet available to Edwards should the trial court 

deny his posttrial motion. 

¶ 15 Edwards criticizes the nature of respondents’ “what if?” arguments. As an example, 

respondents contend that Edwards may receive probation instead of being imprisoned. 

However, the fact remains that these uncertainties exist because Edwards did not await 

disposition of his posttrial motion or sentencing prior to his seeking prohibition in this court. 

We resolutely disapprove of Edwards’s argument that the case could be resolved simply and 

expeditiously on jurisdictional grounds. Because one route may be most expeditious does not 

render an alternative route inadequate, particularly in the context of an original action for a 

writ of prohibition. Original actions of prohibition may not be used to circumvent the normal 

appellate process. Nash, 118 Ill. 2d at 97. A writ of prohibition is “normally to be awarded 

only in rare instances where none of the ordinary remedies is available or adequate.” 

(Emphasis added.) Hughes v. Kiley, 67 Ill. 2d 261, 266 (1977).

¶ 16 Next, Edwards maintains that, even if he were to utilize the ordinary appellate process and 

eventually prevail, he would still sustain irremediable harm because a stay under Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 609 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) would not apply to the license revocation 

proceedings. Edwards contends that his business will falter and his livelihood will be 

jeopardized if he is jailed or has his license revoked.

¶ 17 To show that being sentenced to jail does not constitute irremediable harm, respondents 

cite Hughes, arguing that prohibition was denied to criminal defendants who were not yet 

convicted because they could await conviction and appeal. 67 Ill. 2d at 267-68. Edwards asserts 

that Hughes is inapposite because it concerns a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging a 

due process violation stemming from the way that a prosecutor allegedly spoke to a grand jury. 

Id. at 265-66. Rather, Hughes involved three defendant-petitioners. Id. at 264-65. Two of the 

defendant-petitioners petitioned this court for writs of prohibition seeking to prevent further 

proceedings in their cases after the trial judge denied their motions to quash their indictments. 

Id. Defendant-petitioners had argued that their due process rights had been violated by an 

assistant state’s attorney’s conduct before the grand jury. The third defendant-petitioner, who 

was charged in a different case, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking his discharge 

and release after the trial judge denied his motion to quash the indictment. Id. at 265. All three 

defendant-petitioners argued that they were entitled to the extraordinary relief of prohibition 

or habeas corpus because no other remedy existed that did not require them to suffer extreme 

hardship prior to its availability. Id. at 266.
- 6 -

¶ 18 This court denied the petitions for a writ of prohibition and quashed the writ of 

habeas corpus. Id. at 268. As to the writs of prohibition, the court noted that prohibition was 

not an appropriate remedy because no question of jurisdiction was at issue. Id. at 267-68. 

However, the court commented that the trial judge’s rulings on the motions to quash the 

indictments were still subject to direct review upon conviction. Id. at 268. As to the writ of 

habeas corpus, this court also commented that the defendant-petitioner’s remedy was instead 

by means of direct review. Id. Thus, Edwards’s attempt to distinguish Hughes fails. 

¶ 19 As to Edwards’s argument that his business and livelihood will be harmed due to the loss 

of his timber buyer’s license and delay occasioned by the appellate process, this argument also 

falls short. Respondents rightly note that Edwards is essentially complaining of collateral 

consequences that may occur pending an appeal. See People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507, 520 

(2009) (“[c]ollateral consequences *** are effects upon the defendant that the circuit court has 

no authority to impose” and that “result[ ] from an action that may or may not be taken by an 

agency that the trial court does not control”). Were we to consider such consequences 

indicative of irremediable harm, then the normal appellate process would nearly always prove 

inadequate. 

¶ 20 Here, the trial court did not order that Edwards’s license be revoked. Instead, the finding 

of guilt triggered the collateral consequence of the Department of Natural Resources taking 

steps to revoke his license. Of note, Edwards offers only a vague portrayal of the situation 

surrounding his timber buyer’s license. In Edwards’s brief, he represents that he has a timber 

buyer’s license. Respondents’ brief notes that, “[t]hough not of record here, petitioner appears 

to have obtained a license after the transactions below.” In reply, Edwards states that 

“[r]espondents properly recognize that petitioner obtained a timber buyer’s license after the 

alleged transactions at issue in the Schuyler County case.” Then, Edwards declares that the 

Department of Natural Resources has already initiated and continued to pursue proceedings 

against his license. Finally, at oral argument, counsel suggested that this court take judicial 

notice “that the IDNR after this court stayed proceedings in Schuyler County attempted and 

did for a period of 92 days suspend Mr. Edwards’s since acquired timber buyer’s license.” 

¶ 21 Putting aside the fact that the license revocation proceeding is an entirely separate matter, 

Edwards also has not provided any documentation relating to his licensure or the license 

revocation proceedings. This court is left to guess when exactly Edwards obtained a license; if 

the Department of Natural Resources had other bases for seeking suspension or revocation of 

his license; what effect, if any, an award of prohibition would have upon the agency 

proceeding; whether Edwards’s license is at present suspended, revoked, or reinstated; and the 

precise status of the suspension/revocation proceeding. In this circumstance, without more, 

Edwards has not demonstrated irremediable harm so as to warrant excusal from the normal 

appellate process. See Zaabel, 209 Ill. 2d at 132 (petitioner has the burden to show that he 

would be irremediably harmed). 

¶ 22 Still, even if no irremediable harm is apparent, Edwards urges this court to exercise its 

discretion and consider this action. See id. (although petitioner did not demonstrate that the 

normal appellate process would not provide an adequate remedy, court chose to address the 

merits of petitioner’s complaint for prohibition because issue was important to the 

administration of justice); Orenic v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 127 Ill. 2d 453, 468 

(1989) (“Though mandamus is extraordinary, we may consider a petition for the writ when it 
- 7 -

presents an issue that is novel and of crucial importance to the administration of justice, even 

if all the normal requirements for the writ’s award are not met initially.”); Moore, 114 Ill. 2d 

at 540 (despite finding the normal appellate process to be adequate, court exercised its 

discretion and addressed the merits of Moore’s arguments).

¶ 23 In People ex rel. Foreman v. Nash, this court began its analysis by considering whether 

writs of mandamus or prohibition or supervisory orders would be proper remedies in that case. 

118 Ill. 2d at 95. The court concluded that Moore was controlling and noted that the State had 

already presented arguments on direct appeal to the appellate court, on petition for rehearing, 

and to this court via a petition for leave to appeal. Id. at 98. This court explained that “[a]n 

extraordinary remedy such as a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition should not be used 

as a substitute for another appeal.” Id. The court did not consider the questions presented 

therein to be of such importance to the administration of justice to require this court’s exercise 

of its supervisory authority. Id. Thus, the court concluded that the State’s motion was 

improvidently granted and did not reach the merits of the parties’ arguments. Id.

¶ 24 Similarly, we see no reason to look past Edwards’s failure to show that he lacks any other 

adequate remedy and nevertheless address the merits of Edwards’s complaint. Unlike in 

Moore, Edwards’s time to appeal has not expired. See Moore, 114 Ill. 2d at 540 (“Our failure 

to dispose of this action *** would waste judicial resources as well as be unjust to Moore, 

because his time to appeal has now expired.”). We likewise do not consider the issue presented 

to be important to the administration of justice. See Foreman, 118 Ill. 2d at 98 (“[W]e do not 

consider that the questions as presented here are of such importance to the administration of 

justice that they necessitate this court’s exercise of its supervisory authority.”). Accordingly, 

we refuse to address the merits of the parties’ remaining arguments.

¶ 25 CONCLUSION

¶ 26 For a writ of prohibition to issue, a petitioner must demonstrate that all four of its 

requirements have been met. Zaabel, 209 Ill. 2d at 131-32. Edwards fails to establish that the 

normal appellate process would not afford an adequate remedy or will cause him irremediable 

harm. We decline to nonetheless address the merits of Edwards’s complaint because it does 

not present an issue that is important to the administration of justice.

¶ 27 Writ denied. 

¶ 28 JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting:

¶ 29 Petitioner, Kenin L. Edwards, was convicted by a jury of two counts of the purported crime 

of “unlawfully acting as a timber buying agent for multiple licensed timber buyers.” Before 

the trial court could sentence Edwards, however, this court allowed his petition seeking 

prohibition relief and stayed sentencing. The crux of Edwards’s petition was that he had been 

charged, and convicted, of an insufficiently defined regulatory offense. Indeed, a review of the 

applicable administrative rule demonstrates that Edwards has been convicted of an alleged 

regulatory offense that does not exist. In addition, his convictions are based on alleged conduct 

that does not violate the regulation relied on in the State’s information. 

¶ 30 The majority fails to acknowledge this injustice. Instead, the majority agrees with the State 

that Edwards should relitigate this matter in the ordinary appellate process because he does not 
- 8 -

meet the formal requirements for prohibition relief. Supra ¶¶ 24-26. Even if I agreed with the 

majority that Edwards is not entitled to prohibition relief, I cannot agree with the majority’s 

decision to ignore the critical error underlying Edwards’s convictions. For the reasons 

explained below, I believe that this court should exercise its supervisory authority to direct the 

circuit court to vacate Edwards’s convictions. Thus, I respectfully dissent. 

¶ 31 In opposing Edwards’s petition, the State argues, in relevant part, that section 11(a) of the 

Timber Buyers Licensing Act (Act) criminalizes the violation of administrative rules and 

regulations promulgated under the Act. 225 ILCS 735/11(a) (West 2016). Initially, as the State 

correctly concedes, it is important to recognize that the information did not rely on section 

11(a). Putting that fundamental defect aside for the sake of argument, I tend to agree with the 

State’s general proposition that the legislature has criminalized violations of administrative 

rules under section 11(a) of the Act. 

¶ 32 It is undisputed that both counts in the information charging Edwards with a criminal 

offense relied, in relevant part, on the administrative rule found in section 1535.1(b) of Title 

17. 17 Ill. Adm. Code 1535.1(b) (2003). Logically, then, this court’s analysis should focus on 

the administrative rule that the State alleges that Edwards violated. The majority, however, 

does not even cite, let alone analyze, the language of section 1535.1(b) of Title 17, the 

administrative rule at the heart of the dispute here. In its entirety, that rule provides:

“(b) Only persons listed with the Department [of Natural Resources] as authorized 

buyers may represent the licensee. Authorized buyers shall designate in all contractual 

arrangements that the licensee is the timber buyer. Failure to comply with this provision 

shall constitute ‘buying timber without a timber buyer’s license.’ Authorized buyers 

may only be listed on one license. To be eligible to hold a timber buyer’s license, the 

applicant must be at least 18 years of age.” 17 Ill. Adm. Code 1535.1(b) (2003). 

For purposes of this case, section 1535.1(b) of Title 17 is a rather simple and straightforward 

administrative rule. It plainly identifies and defines a single regulatory offense—“buying 

timber without a timber buyer’s license.”

¶ 33 Although the State’s information cited that rule in charging Edwards, the State did not 

allege that Edwards committed the actual offense defined by section 1535.1(b) of Title 17. 

Instead, in what has to be a truly unprecedented maneuver, the State relied on that rule to 

charge Edwards with a completely different offense. Specifically, the State alleged that 

Edwards committed two counts of the purported regulatory offense of “unlawfully acting as a 

timber buying agent for multiple licensed timber buyers.” 

¶ 34 It is undisputed, however, that section 1535.1(b) of Title 17 does not contain any reference 

to the offense Edwards was alleged to have committed, let alone identify the elements of that 

charged offense. Although Edwards was convicted of two counts of what appears to be a 

completely new regulatory offense, the State has never identified the elements of this supposed 

regulatory offense despite the circuit court twice allowing the State to amend its information. 

Likewise, the majority here never identifies the name of the underlying offense that supports 

Edwards’s convictions. Instead, the majority states that Edwards was “charged by information 

with two violations of the Timber Buyers Licensing Act.” Supra ¶ 3. 

¶ 35 It is not clear from the State’s argument in this court how an administrative rule can be 

used to support a criminal conviction of an alleged regulatory offense that the rule itself never 

identifies or details. The State has not cited, and my research has not revealed, any legal 
- 9 -

authority allowing the State to rely on an administrative regulation that defines one regulatory 

offense to obtain a criminal conviction for a completely different, and undefined, regulatory 

offense. But that is exactly what has occurred in this case. 

¶ 36 If that glaring deficiency is not sufficiently concerning to the majority, it is also readily 

apparent from the rule’s plain language that the prohibitions of section 1535.1(b) of Title 17 

are inapplicable to the conduct that was charged against Edwards in the information. Count I 

of the information alleged that Edwards “knowingly acted as an authorized agent for multiple 

licensed timber buyers, being listed as an agent for timber buyer Trent Copelen and acted as 

agent for timber buyer Jonathan Luckett and represented himself as a timber buyer when 

attempting to enter into an agreement with Donald Cook.” Count II alleged, in relevant part, 

that Edwards “knowingly acted as an authorized agent for multiple licensed timber buyers, 

being listed as an agent for timber buyer Trent Copelen and acted as an agent for timber buyer 

Jonathan Luckett in selling timber to Leroy Yoder of Plainview Pallet, Tom Farris of Farris 

Forest Products, John Peters of River City Hardwood, Inc., Norman Hochstetler of Oak Ridge 

Lumber, LLC, and Michael Eichen of Eichen Lumber Company, Inc.”

¶ 37 As previously explained, the only administrative rule cited in the State’s information that 

could conceivably apply to the charged conduct is the rule contained in section 1535.1(b) of 

Title 17. The uncontested record, however, shows that the alleged conduct does not violate any 

part of that rule’s four requirements. 

¶ 38 First, an offender could violate the rule by failing to be listed with the Department of 

Natural Resources as an authorized buyer to represent the timber buyer licensee. 17 Ill. Adm. 

Code 1535.1(b) (2003). Neither count of the information alleged that Edwards was not listed 

with the Department of Natural Resources as an authorized buyer. Second, an offender could 

violate the rule by failing to designate in all contractual arrangements that the licensee is the 

timber buyer. 17 Ill. Adm. Code 1535.1(b) (2003). Neither count of the information alleged 

that Edwards violated this provision in any contractual arrangements. Third, the rule could be 

violated if the offender is “listed” as an authorized buyer on more than one timber buyer’s 

license. 17 Ill. Adm. Code 1535.1(b) (2003). Both counts of the information allege that 

Edwards was “listed as an agent for timber buyer Trent Copelen,” but the charges do not 

specify any other person for whom Edwards was “listed” as an authorized buyer or agent. In 

other words, Edwards appears to have complied with this provision. Last, an offender could 

violate the rule by applying for a timber buyer’s license before reaching the age of 18 years. 

17 Ill. Adm. Code 1535.1(b) (2003). Neither count of the information alleges that Edwards 

applied for a timber license when he was a minor. 

¶ 39 To summarize, the rule in section 1535.1(b) of Title 17 can potentially be violated in only 

four ways, but neither charge in the two-count information alleged that Edwards violated any 

of those four requirements or prohibitions. In other words, it does not even appear from the 

face of the State’s information that Edwards belongs to a category of offender that the 

administrative rule was intended to govern. Presumably, that is why the State chose to charge 

Edwards with committing a completely different and undefined regulatory offense than the 

one actually identified by section 1535.1(b) of Title 17. 

¶ 40 I understand my colleagues’ reluctance to apply this court’s historically narrow 

jurisprudence on the extraordinary remedy of prohibition relief. Nonetheless, this court need 

not turn a blind eye to a clear injustice. Nothing is to be gained from expending more judicial 
- 10 -

resources on this case by forcing Edwards to relitigate this matter in the lower courts. And, 

contrary to the State’s argument here, this case presents an error much more serious than a 

simple defect in the charging instrument.

¶ 41 While supervisory orders are generally disfavored outside of our leave-to-appeal docket 

(People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185, 212 (2009)), this court recently reaffirmed 

in a unanimous decision that our supervisory authority over Illinois’s judicial system is 

“unlimited in extent and hampered by no specific rules” (Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health 

Service, Inc., 2018 IL 123025, ¶ 16). Of course, we exercise our supervisory authority with 

restraint and “only under exceptional circumstances.” Vasquez Gonzalez, 2018 IL 123025, 

¶ 17.

¶ 42 I believe that this case presents that kind of exceptional circumstance. In what is hopefully 

an exceedingly rare occurrence, the State in this case has obtained a criminal conviction for a 

regulatory offense that does not exist based on charged conduct that is not criminalized by the 

regulation cited in the information. We should not hesitate to exercise our supervisory authority 

to correct this clear injustice. See In re Estate of Funk, 221 Ill. 2d 30, 97-98 (2006) (explaining 

that this court’s supervisory authority “is bounded only by the exigencies which call for its 

exercise”). If a majority of this court does not believe this case qualifies for prohibition relief, 

it should, in my opinion, exercise its plenary supervisory authority to enter a supervisory order 

directing the circuit court to vacate Edwards’s criminal convictions. Accordingly, I respectfully 

dissent. 

¶ 43 JUSTICES BURKE and NEVILLE join in this dissent.