People ex rel. Glasgow v. Carlson, 2016 IL 120544

Defendant Mitchell Harper was indicted for aggravated DUI after a March 23, 2014 offense, alleged to be his third DUI (prior DUIs in 1994 in Georgia and 2013 in Illinois).
After a bench trial in July 2015, Harper was found guilty of aggravated DUI; sentencing was continued while the court reviewed prior convictions and classification.
The State produced certified prior-conviction records and argued a third DUI is a Class 2 felony under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(2)(B) and that Harper must be sentenced as a Class X offender based on his other felony convictions.
The circuit court disagreed, finding an inconsistency in section 11-501 and sentenced Harper as a Class 4 offender to 24 months’ probation. The court relied on benchbook commentary and suggested the statute was ambiguous.
The State sought mandamus relief from the Illinois Supreme Court to vacate the sentencing order, classify the offense as a Class 2 felony, and require resentencing as a Class X offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper felony classification for a third DUI under 625 ILCS 5/11-501	Third violation is expressly a Class 2 felony under §11-501(d)(2)(B)	Statutory language is ambiguous; baseline §11-501(d)(2)(A) suggests Class 4 and rule of lenity should apply	Held: §11-501(d)(2)(B) unambiguously makes a third DUI a Class 2 felony
Whether circuit court may ignore specific elevating provision in favor of baseline class	State: specific provision controls over baseline “except as provided otherwise” language	Court: relied on benchbook and perceived inconsistency to apply baseline Class 4	Held: “Except as provided otherwise” means specific provisions (d)(2)(B) control; circuit court erred
Whether benchbook commentary can override statutory text and appellate precedent	State: statutory text and appellate decisions control	Court: used benchbook commentary to justify sentencing and ambiguity finding	Held: Benchbooks lack precedential authority; statutory text controls
Applicability of Class X sentencing based on defendant’s broader felony history	State: Harper’s prior Class 2/X convictions trigger Class X sentencing under Unified Code	Defense: urged lenity and lesser classification to avoid Class X consequences	Held: Because aggravated DUI is a Class 2 felony and Harper has at least two prior Class 2-or-higher convictions, he must be sentenced as a Class X offender

People ex rel. Glasgow v. Kinney, 2012 IL 113197 (mandamus standard explained)
People v. Van Schoyck, 232 Ill. 2d 330 (2009) (statute elements and separate sentencing section distinction)
In re N.C., 2014 IL 116532 (statutory language must be applied as written)
People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill. 2d 250 (2008) (circuit courts bound by appellate precedent)
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Skryd, 241 Ill. 2d 34 (mandamus is extraordinary remedy)
People ex rel. Birkett v. Jorgensen, 216 Ill. 2d 358 (2005) (de novo review in mandamus for legal issues)
People v. Fiveash, 2015 IL 117669 (statutory construction principles)
People v. Chapman, 2012 IL 111896 (consider statute in entirety to effect legislative intent)