People ex rel. Alvarez v. Gaughan
2016 IL 120110
Ill.2017Background
- Castleberry was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (oral and vaginal) while armed with a firearm.
- The court imposed a single 15-year firearm enhancement, producing 21-year minimums on each count but did not apply it to both counts.
- Castleberry appealed; appellate court remanded to correct sentence under the void-sentence concept.
- This Court later overruled the void-sentence rule in Castleberry, but the mandamus action proceeded.
- State’s Attorney Alvarez sought a writ of mandamus to require imposition of the 15-year enhancement on both convictions.
- Judge Gaughan and Castleberry were named as respondents; Attorney General participated by notice but did not object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to impose two enhancements | Alvarez argues for two enhancements | Castleberry argues issues with mandamus/standing | Writ issued; two enhancements on both counts required |
| Standing to bring mandamus | Alvarez had standing as State's Attorney | Castleberry questions authority of State's Attorney | State's Attorney has standing; mandamus proper |
| Laches and timing | No unreasonable delay by State | Castleberry argues prejudice from delay | Laches rejected; no prejudice shown |
| Effect of abolishing void sentence rule | Rule abolished; proper correction possible | Rule not binding for mandamus relief | Rule abolition supports correction by mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Ill. 2015) (abolished void sentence rule; mandamus proper for statutory compliance)
- People ex rel. Meersman, 2012 IL 114163 (Ill. 2012) (mandamus to correct noncompliant sentence)
- People v. White, 2011 IL 109616 (Ill. 2011) (vacatur when not conforming to statute; used to justify correction)
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1995) (void sentence rule origin; framework prior to Castleberry)
- Fergus v. Russell, 270 Ill. 304 (Ill. 1915) (Solicited discussion of Attorney General/State’s Attorney powers)
- Briceland, 65 Ill.2d 488 (Ill. 1966) (discussion of Attorney General representation before agencies)
- Rifkin v. Bear Stearns & Co., 215 Ill.2d 466 (Ill. 2005) (State’s Attorney as constitutional officer with broad powers)