Court Opinion

ID: 9861250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:50:37.004041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:50.656289
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE DiVITO, specially concurring: I concur in the court’s judgment. I write separately only to address the impact of recent legislation on future appellate review of unsentenced convictions. Although there is no final judgment in a criminal case until the imposition of sentence, and in the absence of a final judgment an appeal cannot be entertained (People v. Flores (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 66, 95, 538 N.E.2d 481, 492, cert. denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1031, Ill L. Ed. 2d 799, 110 S. Ct. 3291; People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 23, 51, 464 N.E.2d 223, 236-37, cert. denied (1984), 469 U.S. 963, 83 L. Ed. 2d 298, 105 S. Ct. 362), in People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493, 309 N.E.2d 1, our supreme court vacated an unsentenced conviction. Following Lilly, many cases have vacated unsentenced convictions, but I know of no case where a sentence has been vacated or a remandment for imposition of a new sentence has occurred, based merely upon an unsentenced conviction. Given the holding in Lilly and its progeny, and the holding of the court in this case, circuit courts should be put on notice that they must use the "magic words” of vacatur whenever there are unsentenced convictions related to the one-act-one-crime doctrine, or lesser included offenses. The vacatur implicit in imposing sentence on only some convictions is inadequate. Nevertheless, the issue will be obviated in the future because of the passage of Public Act 88 — 311, effective August 11, 1993. This amendment to section 5 — 8—1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—1(c) (West Supp. 1993)) requires: "A defendant’s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing shall be made by a written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence.” For cases after August 11, 1993, a defendant who fails to raise the issue in the circuit court should be deemed to have waived it on appeal; in those instances where the issue is raised, the circuit court will be in the position of entering a formal order of vacatur. The amendment to section 5 — 8—1(c) is consistent with our supreme court’s stated concerns regarding the work load of the reviewing courts and its amended Supreme Court Rule 23 (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 15 (July 20, 1994), R. 23, eff. July 1, 1994) limiting the number, length, and types of opinions to be published by the appellate court. It is also consistent with the general principle of appellate review that requires the preservation of error at the circuit level. Because of the amendment there should be fewer frivolous appeals of sentence, and the issue in cases like this should seldom occur.