People v. Cashaw
2016 IL App (4th) 140759
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- In March 2006 James E. Cashaw was convicted of criminal sexual assault; the trial court sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment and imposed a $200 domestic-violence fine.
- Cashaw did not challenge the $200 fine on direct appeal; his conviction and sentence were affirmed in 2008.
- He filed multiple collateral challenges (postconviction petitions and a 2-1401 petition) over the years; none attacked the domestic-violence fine.
- In May 2014 Cashaw sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance; the trial court denied leave and Cashaw appealed.
- For the first time on this appeal Cashaw argued the $200 fine was unauthorized by statute and therefore void under Illinois’s former “void-sentence rule.”
- The State conceded the fine lacked statutory authorization but relied on People v. Castleberry (which abolished the void-sentence rule) to argue Cashaw forfeited the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cashaw can challenge the $200 domestic-violence fine collaterally despite forfeiture | The State: Castleberry abolished the void-sentence rule; the fine is not "void," so Cashaw forfeited the claim | Cashaw: Castleberry should not apply retroactively to his final conviction; the pre-Castleberry void-sentence rule makes the fine void and reviewable | The court held Castleberry applies; the fine is not void and Cashaw forfeited the claim |
| Whether Castleberry must be given retroactive effect in collateral proceedings attacking convictions final before Castleberry | The State: Castleberry governs and prevents void-sentence attacks on final cases | Cashaw: Teague principles mean Castleberry should not be applied retroactively to his finalized case | The court held Castleberry applies retroactively here; Teague does not control this defensive use by a defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, 43 N.E.3d 932 (Illinois Supreme Court) (abolished the void-sentence rule; statutory authorization does not affect circuit court original jurisdiction)
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill.2d 107, 658 N.E.2d 445 (1995) (previously held sentences not conforming to statutory requirements were void)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity framework for new rules in collateral federal habeas proceedings)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules apply to cases pending on direct review)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural rules for retroactivity to final convictions)
- People v. Flowers, 138 Ill.2d 218, 561 N.E.2d 674 (1990) (Illinois adopts Teague framework for state collateral proceedings)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (discusses Teague’s finality rationale and petitioner’s lack of interest in finality)