People ex rel. Alvarez v. Gaughan
72 N.E.3d 276
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Steven Castleberry was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault for two separate acts (oral and vaginal penetration) committed while armed with a firearm.
- The statute (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(8), (d)(1)) mandates a 15-year firearm enhancement be added to the sentence for aggravated criminal sexual assault committed while armed with a firearm.
- At sentencing the trial court applied the 15-year enhancement to only one of the two convictions and imposed consecutive nine-year sentences plus one 15-year addition (total 33 years), concluding the enhancement should be applied only once.
- The appellate court agreed with the State that the enhancement should be applied to each conviction and, relying on the then-existing “void sentence rule,” remanded for resentencing.
- This Court in People v. Castleberry abolished the void sentence rule and held the State’s remedy to challenge mandatory sentencing errors is by mandamus, not by appealing to vacate the sentence on direct review.
- The Cook County State’s Attorney (Anita Alvarez) filed an original mandamus petition in this Court seeking an order requiring the trial judge to impose the 15-year enhancement on both convictions. The Attorney General received notice but did not object or intervene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available to require imposition of the statutory 15-year firearm enhancement on each conviction | Alvarez: mandamus may compel a judge to perform nondiscretionary statutory duties; two distinct convictions each require the enhancement | Castleberry: relief barred by laches; potential statutory conflict prevents correction; State’s Attorney lacks standing to pursue in this Court | Writ granted: mandamus is appropriate to correct a trial court’s failure to apply a mandatory sentencing enhancement on each separate conviction |
| Whether laches bars the State’s petition | Alvarez: no unreasonable delay; State raised issue at trial and on direct appeal | Castleberry: State delayed unreasonably and prejudiced defendant and public interest in finality | Laches rejected: no unreasonable delay or prejudice to defendant shown |
| Whether other statutes (Code of Corrections provisions limiting sentence increases) prohibit correcting the sentence | Alvarez: those provisions guard against vindictive resentencing and do not bar correction of an unlawfully lenient sentence to conform with a statutory mandate | Castleberry: statutory limits and Pearce principles bar increasing an imposed sentence | Court: statutes address vindictiveness and do not prevent mandamus correction of sentences that fail to comply with a statutory mandate |
| Whether the Cook County State’s Attorney had standing to bring this mandamus action in this Court | Alvarez: State’s Attorney is a constitutional officer with powers analogous to Attorney General and may act (especially where notice to Attorney General occurred) | Castleberry: only the Attorney General may represent the People before this Court | Court: State’s Attorney had authority and standing here (given authority of office, historical practice, statutory subsections authorizing assistance and catchall duties, and absence of Attorney General objection) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (discussing the void sentence rule and appellate correction of nonconforming sentences)
- People v. White, 2011 IL 109616 (affirming that a sentence that does not conform to statutory mandates is subject to correction)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (abolishing the void sentence rule and directing mandamus as the proper remedy for the State to enforce mandatory sentencing requirements)
- People ex rel. Senko v. Meersman, 2012 IL 114163 (mandamus as remedy to compel nondiscretionary sentencing duties)
- People v. Moore, 177 Ill. 2d 421 (discussing Pearce-related protections against vindictive resentencing)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (due process limits on imposing harsher sentences after successful challenges to prior convictions)
- County of Cook ex rel. Rifkin v. Bear Stearns & Co., 215 Ill. 2d 466 (discussing constitutional status and role of State’s Attorneys relative to the Attorney General)