Court Opinion

ID: 9819221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:25.977972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.517854
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KOEHLER, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: The defendant contends that his sentence should be vacated because Public Act 89 — 404, in which the truth-in-sentencing pro visions were included by the legislature, violated the Illinois Constitution’s “single subject rule.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. I\( § 8(d). The majority holds that the defendant must challenge the constitutionality of Public Act 89 — 404 by filing a habeas corpus petition, a petition for writ of mandamus, or an action for declaratory judgment directed at the Illinois Department of Corrections, and, in so holding, the majority refused to reach the issue of the constitutionality of Public Act 89 — 404. People v. Watford, 294 Ill. App. 3d 462, 465-66, 690 N.E.2d 1009, 1010 (1997) (Lytton, J., dissenting). Here the majority, in essence, reaffirms the Watford holding. This court must determine whether the legislature enacted Public Act 89 — 404 in a manner that violates our state constitution. The Illinois Constitution prohibits the enactment of bills that encompass more than one subject. It provides, in pertinent part: “Bills, except bills for appropriations and for the codification, revision or rearrangement of laws, shall be confined to one subject.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. iy § 8(d). Our supreme court in Johnson v. Edgar, 176 Ill. 2d 499, 512, 680 N.E.2d 1372, 1378 (1997), explained that alleging that an act violates the single subject rule is, by definition, a challenge directed at the act in its entirety. In this case, no one provision or feature of the act that is challenged as unconstitutional can be remedied by a subsequent amendment that simply deletes or alters the provision or feature. Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 512, 680 N.E.2d at 1378. Indeed, a single subject challenge does not address the substantive constitutionality of the act’s provisions at all. Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 512, 680 N.E.2d at 1378. Rather, a single subject challenge goes to the very structure of the act and the process by which it was enacted. Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 512, 680 N.E.2d at 1378. Thus, if this court were to determine that Public Act 89 — 404 in its structure is invalid, the Act cannot stand. Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 512, 680 N.E.2d at 1378. Since the single subject rule is a substantive requirement for the passage of bills and is therefore subject to judicial review, the constitutionality of Public Act 89 — 404 must be raised on direct appeal. Johnson, 176 Ill. 2d at 512, 680 N.E.2d at 1379. Consequently, I cannot join in the majority judgment affirming the defendant’s sentence, and I concur only in the judgment affirming defendant’s conviction and the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s attempt to assert compulsion as an affirmative defense.