People v. Abdullah, 160 N.E.3d 833

Background

In March 2004 Abdullah was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder and attempted first‑degree murder; initial sentences (Aug. 17, 2005) were concurrent: 40 years (murder) and 20 years (attempted murder).
After the State filed a postjudgment motion seeking mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences (including firearm enhancements), Abdullah filed a notice of appeal; the trial court struck the notice as untimely and resentenced Abdullah (Nov. 17, 2005; modified Jan. 20, 2006) to consecutive terms with 25‑ and 20‑year firearm enhancements (aggregate 76 years).
Abdullah pursued direct appeal and postconviction relief; in 2014 he filed a pro se 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition arguing the resentencing orders were void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction after his timely notice of appeal and because the attempted‑murder firearm enhancement raised ex post facto/due process concerns.
The trial court denied the 2‑1401 petition (finding the enhancement error harmless); the appellate court affirmed, construing Rule 606(b) to allow the State’s motion and rejecting Abdullah’s Morgan‑based voidness claim.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed: it held the State lacked statutory or rule authority to file a postjudgment motion increasing sentence, Rule 606(b)’s reference to “counsel” refers to defense counsel only, the post‑notice resentencing orders were void for lack of jurisdiction, and Abdullah’s original concurrent sentences were reinstated.

Issues

Issue	Abdullah's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Did Abdullah’s timely notice of appeal divest the trial court of jurisdiction to resentence him after the State filed a motion to increase sentence?	Abdullah: Yes — Rule 606(b) strikes only defense postjudgment motions; once he filed a timely notice of appeal the trial court lost jurisdiction.	State: No — Rule 606(b) permits the trial court to strike notices of appeal when a timely postjudgment motion by “counsel” (including the State) is pending; nothing prohibits the State from filing such a motion.	Held: The State had no authority to file a motion to increase sentence; “counsel” means defense counsel; Abdullah’s timely notice perfected appellate jurisdiction and the subsequent sentencing orders are void.
Does Rule 606(b)’s exception apply when the prosecution files a posttrial/postsentencing motion to modify sentence?	Abdullah: No — the rule contemplates defense motions; the State may not use the rule to circumvent its limited appeal rights.	State: Yes — Rule 606(b) is not limited to defense counsel and can render a premature notice ineffective.	Held: No — the State’s motion was unauthorized (no statutory or rule basis); Rule 606(b) does not authorize the State to nullify a defendant’s perfected appeal.
Was the attempted‑murder firearm enhancement void ab initio under People v. Morgan or on ex post facto grounds?	Abdullah: The enhancement was unconstitutional at the time of offense under Morgan and therefore void.	State: Morgan was later overruled by Sharpe, so the enhancement was not void; the State later conceded the 20‑year enhancement should be vacated on ex post facto grounds.	Held: The court resolved the case on jurisdictional grounds and reinstated the original sentences; it did not adopt Abdullah’s Morgan‑voidness argument as the basis for relief (vacatur occurred because later resentencing orders were void).

Key Cases Cited

People v. Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d 470 (held attempted‑murder firearm enhancement violated the proportionate‑penalty clause)
People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (overruled Morgan and revived attempted‑murder firearm enhancements)
People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (discussing §2‑1401 as vehicle for relief and its civil nature)
People v. Bounds, 182 Ill. 2d 1 (timely notice of appeal vests appellate jurisdiction immediately)
People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (timely notice of appeal is sole jurisdictional step to confer appellate jurisdiction)
People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (Illinois constitutional right to appeal is fundamental)
People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320 (vacating a judgment returns parties to status quo)
People ex rel. Waller v. McKoski, 195 Ill. 2d 393 (mandamus as remedy to enforce mandatory sentencing requirements)