Lesher v. Trent
407 Ill. App. 3d 1170
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Lesher sought mandamus to correct public records showing he remained under Sex Offender Registration Act for 10 years after 1994 release.
- Defendants (ISP Director, Prisoner Review Board Chairman, and Department of Corrections Director) argued the 2008 amendment tolling during reincarceration retroactively applied.
- Plaintiff’s 1991 aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction led to 1994 release; later periods of incarceration (2002 and 2003–2009) affected registration timing.
- Defendants initially treated 2002 incarceration as related to the 1991 offense but later acknowledged it was not; this influenced understanding of tolling.
- Trial court dismissed the mandamus complaint, holding the 2008 amendment retroactively applied; plaintiff appealed.
- Court analyzed whether the 2008 amendment tolls the 10-year period, clarifies existing law, and whether retroactive application violates ex post facto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 amendment tolls the 10-year registration period for reincarceration | Lesher argues the amendment extends tolling to incarceration periods | Defendants contend the amendment clarifies existing law and applies retroactively | Amendment clarifies existing law and tolls during reincarceration |
| Does retroactive application of the amendment violate ex post facto | Ex post facto concern due to extended registration | Registration is not punishment; retroactivity permissible | No ex post facto violation; registration not punishment and amendment retroactive is permissible |
| Must plaintiff have been notified of the amendment to be affected | Failure to notify prevents application | Knowledge of law presumed; notice not required for applicability | Not required; knowledge presumed and applicability independent of notice |
| Was the trial judge biased against Lesher | Judge was prejudiced; cited comments suggesting predisposition | Presumption of fairness; no demonstrable bias | No reversible judicial bias; record shows careful consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Malchow, 193 Ill.2d 413 (2000) (retroactivity of Sex Offender Registration Act amendments; public safety purpose)
- Miranda v. Madigan, 381 Ill.App.3d 1105 (2008) (retroactivity and application of amendments to act)
- People v. Adams, 144 Ill.2d 381 (1991) (registration not punishment; ex post facto considerations)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill.2d 228 (2002) (judicial bias presumption; standards for bias)
- Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 376 Ill.App.3d 429 (2007) (mandamus standard; clear duty to act)