Court Opinion

ID: 9730963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:29:29.015487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:11.712345
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent and would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. There is nothing in the record which indicates that the defendant acted to procure the original proceeding, that it was commenced in order to avoid a heavier sentence, or which shows that the State’s Attorney was unaware of the prior proceedings. Under the circumstances section 3 — 4(d)(2) is clearly inapplicable. The majority states that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the State in the original proceedings. There is no authority for this statement, and it is most conspicuously absent from the two cases cited in support of it. The majority and the People concede that the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the defendant, and the contention that the court was without jurisdiction over the State is utterly without merit. The appellate court noted correctly that the appropriate procedure on the part of the People would have been to appeal from the order of the circuit court. This was not done, and the instant attack comes too late. CLARK and SIMON, JJ., join in this dissent.