Court Opinion

ID: 9819292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:21:54.512369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.796298
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE THOMAS, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree that the defendant’s conviction of predatory criminal sexual assault was invalid because the public act that first enacted that offense was declared unconstitutional by our supreme court for violating the single subject rule, and the defendant’s conduct occurred before that offense was reenacted. However, for the reasons stated in People v. Moore, 295 Ill. App. 3d 676 (1998), I would allow the State’s request to amend the indictment to reflect that the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated criminal sexual assault. As the court in Moore observed, “these two offenses possess exactly the same elements and provide for exactly the same penalty.” (Emphasis in original.) 295 Ill. App. 3d at 685. Because of the later ruling invalidating the enactment, “predatory criminal sexual assault” was technically not the name of the crime describing the conduct for which the defendant was convicted. However, the definition of aggravated criminal sexual assault, which was a valid offense at the time, does precisely describe the defendant’s conduct as charged. Therefore, I would allow the State’s request to amend the indictment. Accordingly, I dissent.