Court Opinion

ID: 9722328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:25:44.818159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:34.051323
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RATHJE, dissenting: Section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections authorizes the imposition of an extended-term prison sentence “[w]hen a defendant is convicted of any felony, after having been previously convicted in Illinois or any other jurisdiction of the same or similar class felony or greater class felony, when such conviction has occurred within 10 years after the previous conviction.” (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) (West 1998). In this case, the trial court imposed — and the majority affirms — an extended-term sentence under section 5 — 5— 3.2(b)(1), even though defendant’s 1997 aggravated battery conviction occurred 12 years after defendant’s 1985 burglary conviction. Unlike the majority, I believe that section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) means what it says and precludes the imposition of an extended-term sentence based upon a 12-year-old conviction.11 therefore dissent. JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this dissent.  At the very least, the State’s insistence that application of section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) is “far from clear,” “imprecise,” and “vague” under the facts of this case mandates a decision in defendant’s favor. See People v. Whitney, 188 Ill. 2d 91, 98 (1999) (any ambiguity in a penal statute must be construed in the defendant’s favor).