Court Opinion

ID: 9860713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:30:34.097322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:32.677887
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REINHARD, dissenting: I disagree that the trial court proceedings were void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. This court issued its mandate in the original appeal in People v. Palmer (1985), 139 Ill. App. 3d 966, following the supreme court’s denial of defendant’s petition for leave to appeal (People v. Palmer (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 566). Thereafter, the appellate court was divested of jurisdiction in this case and could no longer recall the mandate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 368(c) (107 Ill. 2d R. 368(c)). (See People v. MeCloskey (1971), 2 Ill. App. 3d 892, 898.) The subsequent proceeding brought in the supreme court by a motion for leave to file a petition for an original writ of mandamus and for a writ of prohibition (107 Ill. 2d R. 381) and, alternatively, for a supervisory order (107 Ill. 2d R. 383) was an action separate and distinct from the original appeal to the appellate court. (See People ex rel. Foreman v. Nash (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 90.) Unless otherwise directed by our supreme court, which it was not, the appellate court was without jurisdiction to do anything relating to this proceeding. Thus, although the supreme court recalled the appellate court’s mandate while considering the petition for the writs and supervisory order, the appellate court was not revested with jurisdiction to act in this proceeding. Thus, the appellate court was without jurisdiction to recall the mandate, which had already been recalled by the supreme court, nor did it possess jurisdiction to later issue a mandate on September 15, 1988, after the supreme court issued its own mandate on the original action once it decided that the motions before it had been improvidently granted. (People ex rel. Foreman, 118 Ill. 2d at 98.) On this basis, I disagree with the majority’s statement that the circuit court of Lake County regained jurisdiction once this court issued its mandate on September 15,1988. The question remains, however, whether the circuit court ever regained jurisdiction once the supreme court recalled the appellate court’s mandate pending the supreme court’s determination of the original action for issuance of the writs and for a supervisory order. It is apparent that this mandate was recalled on motion of the State’s Attorney of Lake County for a stay of the mandate pending disposition of the original action. Once the original action was decided by the supreme court’s opinion in People ex rel. Foreman v. Nash (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 90, wherein the court determined that the writs and the motion for supervisory order should be denied (118 Ill. 2d at 98-99), and the mandate on this opinion was subsequently issued by the supreme court, the appellate court’s mandate, which had been recalled, was automatically reinstated in the circuit court of Lake County. This provided the circuit court jurisdiction to proceed, as it did. While the supreme court did not expressly reinstate the appellate court’s mandate in its opinion or mandate, there can be no other conclusion drawn as the supreme court denied, without reaching the merits, the writs and motion for supervisory order requested by the State’s Attorney of Lake County and issued its mandate. The effect of the supreme court’s decision and issuance of its mandate was to reinstate the proceedings in the circuit court. Matters which are implied may be considered embraced by the mandate. See PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 291, 308. For the foregoing reasons, I cannot accept the reasoning of the majority that the circuit court of Lake County was without jurisdiction to conduct proceedings and enter an order of involuntary commitment and, accordingly, dissent from the reversal of the judgment below. On the merits of the remaining issues raised by defendant, I would affirm the circuit court. Because I believe the majority has misconstrued the effect of the supreme court’s decision and mandate, the State may wish to expedite review of this decision by moving in the supreme court for an order under Supreme Court Rule 383, as it is the supreme court’s decision which the majority finds has failed to revest jurisdiction in the circuit court of Lake County and, presumably, would continue to have that effect until the issue of jurisdiction is resolved by that court.