Opinion ID: 2092463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability of Remedy

Text: We note at the outset defendants' contention that mandamus, or a supervisory order, is an improper remedy. Defendants are correct that an extraordinary remedy such as mandamus is not available as a matter of right to correct an alleged error of a lower court. ( People ex rel. Foreman v. Nash (1987), 118 Ill.2d 90, 96-97, 112 Ill.Dec. 714, 514 N.E.2d 180, quoting People ex rel. Barrett v. Shurtleff (1933), 353 Ill. 248, 259-60, 187 N.E. 271.) Rather, mandamus is traditionally used to compel, as a matter of public right, a lower court to perform purely ministerial duties where no exercise of discretion is involved. Foreman, 118 Ill.2d at 96, 112 Ill.Dec. 714, 514 N.E.2d 180, quoting Madden v. Cronson (1986), 114 Ill.2d 504, 514, 103 Ill.Dec. 729, 501 N.E.2d 1267. However, it is quite settled that the sentencing provisions of the Unified Code of Corrections [citation] are mandatory and mandamus will lie to compel compliance with them. ( People ex rel. Daley v. Limperis (1981), 86 Ill.2d 459, 466, 56 Ill.Dec. 666, 427 N.E.2d 1212.) We conclude that mandamus is an available remedy.