Opinion ID: 2027052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Before considering the merits of the appeal, we must initially consider defendant's renewed challenge to this court's jurisdiction. As previously stated, defendant was found guilty on March 7, 2007. The case was continued, and the trial court found subsection (a)(4) unconstitutional on August 14, 2007. At an August 31 court date, the State filed a motion to reconsider the court's August 14 order. On September 13, the trial court denied this motion and sentenced defendant to a term of one year's probation. The trial court explained that it found defendant guilty under section 26-1(a)(4)the offense with which he was chargedbut given the proportionate penalties violation, imposed a Class A misdemeanor. However, the August 14 and September 13 orders made no further findings in order to comply with Supreme Court Rule 18 (210 Ill.2d R. 18). [1] The State filed its first Notice of Appeal from this ruling on October 11, 2007, and defendant filed his Notice of Cross-Appeal on October 19, 2007. On October 24, 2007, the clerk of this court issued a letter stating that the notice of appeal would not be filed and docketed in the supreme court for want of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(3) (210 Ill.2d R. 303(b)(3)) or Supreme Court Rule 603 (134 Ill.2d R. 603) and Supreme Court Rule 606(d)(8) (210 Ill.2d R. 606(d)(8)). These rules direct that the notices of appeal from orders finding statutes unconstitutional shall conform with the directives of Supreme Court Rule 18 (210 Ill.2d R. 18). On November 5, 2007, the State filed a motion to amend the order of September 13. The circuit court granted this motion and filed an order on November 30, 2007, in compliance with Rule 18 (210 Ill.2d R. 18). On December 3, 2007, the State filed a notice of appeal which referenced the November 30, 2007, September 13, 2007, and August 13, 2007, orders. The State attached the November 30 order granting the motion to amend and declaring section 26-1(a)(4) unconstitutional in compliance with Rule 18. Defendant filed a notice of cross-appeal on December 11, 2007. Defendant's notice of cross-appeal referenced defendant's conviction on March 6, 2007, the initial finding of unconstitutionality on August 13, 2007, his sentence on September 13, 2007, and the supplemental order of statutory unconstitutionality entered on November 30, 2007. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the State's appeal, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter its November 30, 2007, order. According to defendant, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter this order, this court similarly lacked jurisdiction to review it. On January 16, 2008, this court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. We reject defendant's renewed challenge to this court's jurisdiction. Defendant's current arguments to this court repeat the same essential argument in its earlier motion to this court, namely, that the circuit court's November 30 order was not valid. We first note that the factual basis for this assertion appears to be mistaken. In his brief and at oral argument, defendant asserted that the October 24 letter issued by the clerk of this court was premised upon the mere failure of the State to attach copies of the August 14 or September 13 orders to the notice of appeal. This is simply not the case. Both the August 14 and September 13 orders failed to comply with Rule 18. However, the clerk's letter of October 24 called the parties' and the circuit court's attention to the deficiency in conforming with the specific requirements of Rule 18, not any deficiency in the notice of appeal in merely failing to attach the pieces of paper. As to the merits of defendant's renewed challenge, we note that defendant is again challenging the validity of the November 30 order and this court's jurisdiction. On January 16, 2008, this court rejected defendant's motion challenging this court's jurisdiction premised on the invalidity of the November 30 order. Thus, our earlier decision is now the law of the case. See Weiss v. Waterhouse Securities, Inc., 208 Ill.2d 439, 448, 281 Ill.Dec. 571, 804 N.E.2d 536 (2004) (holding that a jurisdictional challenge previously addressed by this court in a supervisory order had become the law of the case on a subsequent jurisdictional challenge), citing People v. Tenner, 206 Ill.2d 381, 395, 276 Ill.Dec. 343, 794 N.E.2d 238 (2002).