People v. Jackson, 65 N.E.3d 550

On July 28, 2007, Rodney Chaney Jackson and codefendant Leonard Moore approached a group in a White Castle parking lot; Moore brandished a gun, robbed victims, and then entered a green Pontiac Bonneville which Jackson drove away. Police pursued; the vehicle crashed and Moore was arrested with the gun in the car; Jackson was captured after being shot and found bleeding.
Jackson was tried and convicted by a jury of: two counts of aggravated vehicular hijacking, two counts of attempted armed robbery, one count of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and one count of aggravated assault. Sentences included concurrent 25-year terms for each vehicular hijacking and a 19-year term for one attempted armed robbery, among others.
Defense theory included compulsion (claiming Moore forced Jackson to drive) supported by Moore’s testimony that he ordered Jackson to get in the car but admitted he did not threaten Jackson with the gun.
At the jury instruction conference the trial court refused to give a compulsion instruction, stating there had been no timely notice of that affirmative defense; Jackson objected and later appealed multiple grounds.
The appellate court affirmed convictions in part but (a) vacated one aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction under the one-act, one-crime doctrine, (b) ordered resentencing because firearm sentencing enhancements applied at sentencing were unconstitutional at the time of the offense, and (c) directed correction of the mittimus.

Issue	People’s Argument	Jackson’s Argument	Held
Whether Jackson was entitled to a compulsion instruction	No — there was no proper notice and the evidence did not show an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm	Yes — Moore’s armed presence and commands compelled Jackson to drive; denial was based on a factual error about notice	Denied. Even assuming notice issue, Moore’s testimony lacked evidence of an imminent threat necessary for compulsion, so no instruction warranted
Whether two convictions for aggravated vehicular hijacking violate one-act, one-crime	Multiple victims present justify multiple convictions	Single taking of one vehicle is a single act and supports only one hijacking conviction	Vacate one hijacking conviction. Single taking of one car cannot sustain multiple hijacking convictions; remand to trial court to determine which conviction to vacate
Whether firearm sentencing enhancements applied at sentencing were valid	Enhancements valid (implicitly at trial)	Enhancements unconstitutional at time of offense; resentencing required	Vacate affected sentences and remand for resentencing because the enhancements were void ab initio when the offenses occurred
Whether mittimus accurately reflected convictions and sentences	Agreed mittimus was incorrect	Requested correction to match jury verdicts and oral sentence	Remand to correct mittimus consistent with jury verdicts and resentencing

People v. Mack, 105 Ill. 2d 103 (interpreting single-taking rule for robbery; single taking = single robbery)
People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (one-act, one-crime rule; vacate less serious conviction or remand when unclear)
People v. Taylor, 2015 IL 117267 (remedy for sentencing under a facially unconstitutional statute; resentencing required)
People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (firearm enhancement unconstitutional prior to legislative cure)
People v. Unger, 66 Ill. 2d 333 (compulsion requires imminent threat of death or great bodily harm)