Court Opinion

ID: 9819123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:38.317862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:53.170197
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting: I cannot join the majority opinion for two reasons. First, as stated by the appellate court, defendant pleaded guilty to first degree murder, charged solely under section 9 — 1(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(a)(1), now codified as 720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(a)(1) (West 2000)). Neither “brutal or heinous” behavior under section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(2) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5—3.2(b)(2)) nor any other aggravating factor was alleged in the charging instrument or submitted to and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, defendant was only eligible for a 60-year term of imprisonment. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(a)(1)(a). I agree with the appellate court that section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(2) “essentially create[d] a new offense (brutal or heinous first degree murder) that [was] separate from, and more severe than, ordinary first degree murder.” 336 Ill. App. 3d at 346. But, defendant was not charged with “brutal and heinous” first degree murder. He was charged with simple first degree murder and he pleaded guilty only to that specific offense. In affirming defendant’s extended-term sentence, the majority inexplicably sanctions the imposition of a penalty for an uncharged offense that was more severe than the offense that was actually charged. See Hill v. Cowan, 202 Ill. 2d 151, 163 (2002) (Kilbride, J., dissenting upon denial of rehearing). Second, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 455, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000), “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi applies retroactively to all cases that were still pending on direct review, as this one was, when the decision was issued. People v. Ford, 198 Ill. 2d 68, 72-73 (2001). Therefore, for the reasons expressed in Chief Justice Harrison’s dissent in People v. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d 286, 302-08 (2002) (Harrison, C.J., dissenting, joined by Kilbride, J), the majority’s assertion that defendant waived his right to challenge the extended-term portion of his sentence by pleading guilty is also flawed. In Illinois, a statute held unconstitutional is considered void ab initio. People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 399 (1990). It is as if the law never existed. Accordingly, there was no statutory authority for the extended-term portion of defendant’s sentence. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d at 304 (Harrison, C.J., dissenting, joined by Kilbride, J.). That portion of his sentence is therefore void (Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d at 304 (Harrison, C.J., dissenting, joined by Kilbride, J.)) and may be corrected at any time. People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 113 (1995). More specifically, to hold that a sentence is void because it is not authorized by statute under the facts of a case is no different, analytically, from holding that a sentence is void because it is unconstitutional as applied. In the former situation, we allow a defendant to challenge his sentence. See, e.g., People v. Williams, 179 Ill. 2d 331, 333 (1997) (challenge to a trial court’s statutory authority to impose a particular sentence not waived when a defendant fails to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the judgment). Justice, not to mention a consistent body of precedent, dictates the same outcome in the situation at hand, where the sentence is invalid because it is unconstitutional as applied. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d at 306 (Harrison, C.J., dissenting, joined by Kilbride, J.). Accordingly, despite the majority’s conclusion in Jackson, defendant’s plea of guilty should not have resulted in a waiver of his right to have his sentence vacated based on Apprendi. Under these circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, I would hold that defendant’s challenge to his extended-term sentence was not barred by his decision to plead guilty. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court, vacating the extended-term portion of defendant’s sentence and modifying his sentence to 60 years. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.