People v. Castleberry
2015 IL 116916
| Ill. | 2015Background
- Steven Castleberry was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault based on separate acts; each offense carried a mandatory 6-year term and the State sought a 15-year firearm enhancement on each count.
- The trial court applied the 15-year enhancement to only one count, imposing consecutive 9-year base terms (with one 15-year add-on) for a total of 33 years.
- On direct appeal the appellate court affirmed the convictions but, responding to the State, concluded the omitted enhancement was mandatory for both counts and labeled the lower sentence "void," remanding for resentencing.
- Castleberry appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court solely to challenge the appellate court’s void-sentence holding and the appellate court’s authority to increase his sentence at the State’s urging.
- The Supreme Court held the longstanding "void sentence rule" (that a sentence not conforming to statute is void) is invalid and abolished it; it also held the appellate court lacked authority to increase the sentence on the State’s de facto cross-appeal and affirmed the trial court’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the "void sentence" rule | The rule should remain; a nonconforming sentence is void and subject to correction. | Argued the rule is no longer valid given Steinbrecher/Belleville Toyota reasoning—statutory prerequisites do not strip circuit courts of constitutional jurisdiction. | Abolished the void sentence rule as constitutionally unsound; circuit courts have general jurisdiction under the Illinois Constitution. |
| Appellate court authority to increase sentence at State’s request | The appellate court could correct an unauthorized sentence raised in the appeal record. | The State lacked a right to appeal or cross-appeal sentencing orders; increasing the sentence was an impermissible de facto cross-appeal. | Appellate court had no authority to increase the criminal sentence at the State’s urging; reversal of the sentencing order was improper. |
| Proper remedy for State when trial court omits mandatory enhancement | The State may respond in the appellate court to sustain the judgment. | If the sentence violates a mandatory statutory requirement, the State must seek mandamus from the Supreme Court rather than ask the appellate court to increase sentence on appeal. | Mandamus in this Court is the appropriate extraordinary remedy for challenging omission of a mandatory sentencing requirement; State had not sought it. |
| Scope of Rule 615(b) and appellate power to modify sentences | Rule 615(b) permits the appellate court to "reverse, affirm, or modify" judgments, so modification upward is allowed. | Rule 615(b)(4) limits appellate authority to reduce punishment; it does not authorize increasing sentences. | Rule 615(b) does not grant plenary power to increase criminal sentences on review. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (abolished void-sentence rule that treats nonconforming sentences as void)
- Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514 (circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction; "inherent power" jurisdictional theory inappropriate for circuit courts)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (statutory prerequisites are not jurisdictional for circuit courts; protect finality of judgments)
- People v. Scott, 69 Ill. 2d 85 (appellate courts may remand unsentenced convictions for sentencing to complete judgment)