Title: Barney v. Prisoner Review Bd.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85097
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 1998

Barney v. 
Prisoner Review Board, No. 85097 (Ill. S.Ct.) 
Docket No. 85097-Agenda 16-September 
1998.
Opinion filed December 3, 1998.
JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the opinion of the 
court:
Petitioner, Paul Barney, filed in this court an original 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his release from the 
Illinois Department of Corrections. The petition is directed against the 
Prisoner Review Board and the Department of Corrections (collectively, 
respondents). Petitioner contends that his imprisonment, pursuant to an order of 
the Prisoner Review Board (Board) revoking his mandatory supervised release, is 
unlawful and that a writ of habeas corpus should issue for his 
discharge from custody.
Initially, we note that, prior to oral argument, respondents 
moved to dismiss this petition on the grounds that it has been rendered moot by 
the fact petitioner is no longer in the physical custody of the Department of 
Corrections or subject to mandatory supervised release. This court denied 
respondents' motion. The issue of whether this court may grant habeas 
corpus relief from the Board's revocation of mandatory supervised release 
meets the criteria for application of the public interest exception to the 
mootness doctrine. See In re E.G., 133 Ill. 2d 98, 105 (1989) (in 
determining whether a case exhibits the requisite degree of public interest, the 
court examines the public or private nature of the question presented, the 
desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public 
officers, and the likelihood of future recurrence of the question); see also 
In re R.D., 212 Ill. App. 3d 691, 694 (1991) (denial of request for 
habeas corpus relief, although moot, was reviewed because it involved 
issues of substantial public interest). 
This court is authorized by the 1970 Illinois Constitution 
to exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to habeas corpus 
(Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(a)). Faheem-El v. Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d 291, 294 (1988); see also 155 Ill. 2d R. 381; 735 ILCS 5/10-103 (West 1996). 
However, habeas corpus provides relief only on the grounds specified in 
section 10-124 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/10-124 (West 1996)). 
Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d  at 294. Respondents herein argue that the writ of 
habeas corpus procedure is not available to a prisoner, such as 
petitioner, serving a term of mandatory supervised release. We agree.
It is well established that a writ of habeas corpus 
is available only to obtain the release of a prisoner who has been incarcerated 
under a judgment of a court which lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or 
the person of the petitioner, or where there has been some occurrence subsequent 
to the prisoner's conviction which entitled him to release. Hughes v. 
Kiley, 67 Ill. 2d 261, 267 (1977); People ex rel. St. George v. 
Woods, 47 Ill. 2d 261, 262-63 (1970); see also Newsome v. Hughes, 
131 Ill. App. 3d 872, 874 (1985). A petition for writ of habeas corpus 
may not be used to review proceedings which do not exhibit one of these defects, 
even though the alleged error involves a denial of constitutional rights. See 
Newsome, 131 Ill. App. 3d at 874.
The petition filed herein does not allege any error which is 
subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings. Petitioner raises no 
question pertaining to jurisdiction, nor has he alleged any post-conviction 
event which would entitle him to release. As a prisoner on mandatory supervised 
release, petitioner remains in the legal custody of the Department of 
Corrections for the duration of the release period. See 730 ILCS 5/3-14-2(a) 
(West 1996); Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d  at 302; Newsome, 131 Ill. 
App. 3d at 874. Therefore, while petitioner's challenge to the revocation 
proceedings might affect the manner in which he would serve his term of 
mandatory supervised release, it would not entitle him to actual release or 
discharge. See People ex rel. Johnson v. Pate, 47 Ill. 2d 172, 174-76 
(1970); Newsome, 131 Ill. App. 3d at 874-75.
Habeas corpus does not lie if the person is in 
custody by virtue of a final judgment of any circuit court, or of any proceeding 
for the enforcement of such judgment, unless the time during which such party 
may be legally detained has expired. Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d  at 295; 735 
ILCS 5/10-123(2) (West 1996). In Newsome, the appellate court reversed 
a circuit court's grant of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where, 
as here, the petitioner was serving a term of mandatory supervised release and 
sought to review revocation proceedings. We agree with the Newsome 
court, which reasoned:
See also Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d  at 
302.
Petitioner has thus failed to establish a cause for 
discharge under section 10-124 and habeas corpus relief must be denied. 
See Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d  at 302. Given the conclusion reached on this 
issue, petitioner's motion for an additional order requesting that respondents 
place petitioner in good standing and without a violation of his mandatory 
supervised release, which was taken with the case, is denied. For the reasons 
set forth above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 
denied.
Writ denied.
JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring:
While I agree with the majority's analysis on the merits, I 
write separately because, procedurally, this case is moot. This court has the 
power to grant a habeas corpus petitioner only one remedy-discharge 
from custody. 735 ILCS 5/10-124 (West 1996). Because the petitioner here has 
already been released, the opinion of the court today is purely advisory in 
nature. Moreover, given that the majority opinion does not alter or add to the 
law as already articulated by the Illinois courts (see, e.g., 
Faheem-El v. Klincar, 123 Ill. 2d 291 (1988); Newsome v. 
Hughes, 131 Ill. App. 3d 872 (1985)), no public interest is served by 
addressing the merits of the petition. Consequently, the petition for writ of 
habeas corpus should be denied as moot.