Opinion ID: 2222068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proportionate Penalties Challenges

Text: We note that before the scheduled oral argument in this case, respondent filed a motion for leave to withdraw both of his proportionate penalties arguments due to our recent decision in People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d 481, 298 Ill.Dec. 169, 839 N.E.2d 492 (2005). Prior to Sharpe, this court recognized three types of proportionate penalties challenges: (1) those raising cross-comparison analysis, requiring courts to judge penalties by comparing the penalties for offenses with differing elements ( Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d at 516-17, 298 Ill.Dec. 169, 839 N.E.2d 492); (2) those claiming a particular penalty was excessively severe and therefore cruel or degrading; and (3) those comparing the severity of penalties for offenses with identical elements. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d at 521, 298 Ill.Dec. 169, 839 N.E.2d 492. Respondent made two of these three types of challenges, inviting both the use of cross-comparison analysis and a comparison of the penalties in offenses with an identity of elements. He did not claim that the statutory penalty was cruel or degrading. In Sharpe, this court ended our use of cross-comparison analysis, while continuing to permit proportionate penalty claims involving either the cruel or degrading standard or challenging the penalties in offenses with identical elements. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d at 521, 298 Ill.Dec. 169, 839 N.E.2d 492. Respondent's abandonment of his proportionate penalty challenges was based on this change as well as our reversal of Graves. Respondent indicated his belief that the reversal of Graves at best significantly diminishes, if it does not completely eliminate, the precedential effect of the appellate court's Graves decision. Thus, he sought to withdraw both of his proportionate penalties arguments. This court allowed respondent's motion for leave to withdraw those claims prior to hearing oral arguments in this case. Nonetheless, the State's contention that the appellate court erred in finding that the solicitation statute violates the proportionate penalties clause remains properly before this court. The appellate court's finding of unconstitutionality was based entirely on the application of cross-comparison analysis. 352 Ill.App.3d at 148-50, 287 Ill.Dec. 592, 816 N.E.2d 354. Notably, the court conducted its review long before the issuance of our decision in Sharpe. With the subsequent elimination of cross-comparison analysis in Sharpe, we now reverse the appellate court's holding that the statute was constitutionally invalid based on that analysis.