Court Opinion

ID: 9819208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:17.02949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.394002
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOMER, dissenting: Because the defendant has never been convicted of a Class X felony, I believe that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose a Class X extended-term sentence. Unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle is classified in the Illinois Vehicle Code as a Class 2 felony. 625 ILCS 5/4 — 103(a)(1) (West 1994). Due to the defendant’s prior Class 2 felony convictions, the court was required to sentence him as a Class X offender for the current offense. 730 ILCS 5/5 — 5—3(c)(8) (West 1994); see People v. Thomas, 171 Ill. 2d 207, 221-22, 664 N.E.2d 76, 84 (1996). The sentencing range for a Class X felony is 6 to 30 years. 730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—1(a)(3) (West 1994). An extended-term sentence may be given "[w]hen a defendant is convicted of any felony, after having been previously convicted in Illinois or any other jurisdiction of the same or similar class felony or. greater class felony, when such conviction has occurred within 10 years after the previous conviction.” (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) (West 1994). Citing Thomas, the majority correctly notes that the classification of the defendant’s charged offense remained a Class 2 felony, even though he had to be sentenced as a Class X felon. Since neither the defendant’s present nor prior convictions involved Class X felonies, section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) is inapplicable. Under the rationale adopted by the majority the defendant would, by necessity, have received a lesser sentence had he actually committed a Class X felony. In that event, since it could not be said that the defendant had previously been convicted "of the same or similar class felony or greater class felony,” section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) would not apply, and the defendant, therefore, would not have been eligible for a Class X extended-term sentence. The legislature could not possibly have intended such an anomalous result, for if it did, such a disproportionate punishment scheme would surely fail constitutional scrutiny. See People v. Wisslead, 94 Ill. 2d 190, 446 N.E.2d 512 (1983). Doubts in statutory construction must be resolved in favor of the statute’s constitutionality. People v. Williams, 263 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 1102, 638 N.E.2d 207, 211 (1994); People v. Kimbrough, 163 Ill. 2d 231, 237, 644 N.E.2d 1137, 1141 (1994). Thus, both a current and prior Class X felony conviction are required for eligibility for a Class X extended-term sentence under section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1). Accordingly, I would vacate the defendant’s 40-year sentence for unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and remand for resentencing on that conviction.