Court Opinion

ID: 9539894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:11:26.579225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:27.151568
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, specially concurring: I agree that mandamus was appropriate here because the trial court was under a completely nondiscretionary duty — to impose sentence according to law as directed by our mandate (see City of Springfield v. Allphin (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 571, 574; Stuart v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 22, 27-28), and mandamus is intended as a means of compelling performance of a nondiscretionary act. People ex rel. Bauer v. Henry (1957), 10 Ill. 2d 324; see also International Harvester Co. v. Goldenhersh (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 366, 369.