People v. Jernigan, 23 N.E.3d 650

Defendant, Derrick Jernigan, was convicted of five counts of burglary (Class 2 felonies) in 2008 and sentenced in 2009 to five concurrent 25-year terms as a Class X offender under 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8).
The circuit court’s sentencing proceeded despite burglary being Class 2 and required classification as Class X by statute; sentences ran concurrently.
In December 2012, Jernigan filed a 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment alleging various trial errors and coercive issues.
In April 2013, he filed a second 2-1401 petition arguing the concurrent 25-year sentences were void under People v. Pullen.
The State moved to dismiss both petitions; the trial court dismissed the second petition, which Jernigan appealed.
The appellate court held the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the second petition, affirmed the dismissal on the merits, but remanded to address void fines imposed by the circuit clerk and to impose statutorily mandated fines on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second 2-1401 petition was timely and proper.	Jernigan argues the petition was timely due to void sentences.	State contends petition untimely and barred by res judicata and Dace rules.	Jurisdiction proper; petition considered on the merits.
Whether the concurrent 25-year Class X sentences were void under Pullen.	Pullen requires aggregation limits, potentially voiding excess terms.	Concurrent Class X sentencing authorized by 5-5-3(c)(8) even for Class 2 felonies.	Sentences not void; 5-5-3(c)(8) authorized the increased terms.
Whether circuit-clerk-imposed fines were void and must be corrected on remand.	Clerk-imposed fines were void; must be vacated and corrected.	N/A or not applicable; focus on proper imposition.	Vacate void fines; remand to impose statutorily mandated fines.
Whether the 'Medical Costs' and 'Violent Crime' assessments are fines to be vacated.	Assessments are fines requiring abolition or reimposition properly.	N/A	Medical Costs and Violent Crime fines vacated; reimpose only lawful amounts.
Whether other assessments (Youth Diversion, Anti-Crime Fund) were properly handled.	These are fines that must be corrected on remand.	N/A	Vacate Youth Diversion fine and Anti-Crime Fund; impose mandated fines on remand.

People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36 (2000) (classifying effect of prior convictions; not changing offense classification; aggregation limits)
People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (1995) (void orders may be attacked at any time; governs 2-1401 voidness)
People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 118 (2003) (affirming judgment on alternate grounds; statutory analysis of sentences)
Burnicka v. Marquette National Bank, 88 Ill. 2d 527 (1982) (new action rule for successive 2-1401 petitions)
Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002) (treatment of jurisdiction in multiple petitions)
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (2013) (classification and assessment of fines; procedure for remand to impose fines)
Graves v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (2009) (fee vs. fine distinction for assessments)
People v. O’Laughlin, 2012 IL App (4th) 110018 (2012) (calculation order for Victims Act surcharge on remand)