Court Opinion

ID: 9714069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:29:59.321074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:23.109406
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LYTTON, dissenting: I dissent from the majority’s refusal to address the merits of this appeal. The majority correctly concludes that the defendant can file a habeas corpus petition, petition for writ of mandamus or an action for declaratory judgment in order to challenge the validity of Public Act 89 — 404 (Act); however, the majority fails to cite any authority that holds that these are the only avenues for mounting such a challenge. The majority attempts to distinguish "condition of incarceration” from "condition of sentence,” yet the appellate court has considered a similar issue on direct appeal. People v. Burton, 100 Ill. App. 3d 1021 (1981) (what "good time” credit should apply to a defendant’s sentence). "Whether or not the Act is constitutional, the majority’s decision will cause unnecessary delays in the resolution of this question. Under the majority’s decision, thousands of defendants, subject to different sentences, scattered in prisons throughout the state, could challenge the Act. The prospect of needless and costly piecemeal litigation will only serve to hinder the effective administration of justice. On the other hand, a decision today on the constitutionality of the Act would apply uniformly to all prisoners affected by its reach. Both the Department of Corrections and its inmates would benefit from an early and conclusive determination of the constitutional issue presented in this case.