People v. Lampkins, 26 N.E.3d 601

In 2006, 17-year-old Lathern Lampkins and a codefendant committed a home invasion, armed robbery, vehicular hijacking, kidnapping, and an aggravated criminal sexual assault (ACSA) during which Lampkins possessed a firearm.
After a 2008 bench trial Lampkins was convicted of ACSA with a firearm, home invasion, armed robbery, and vehicular hijacking; he received 27 years on ACSA (including a 15‑year firearm add‑on) consecutive to four concurrent 8‑year terms on the other convictions.
Direct‑appeal counsel filed an Anders motion and the appellate court affirmed; Lampkins later filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel for failing to raise issues on appeal.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the postconviction petition as frivolous; the appellate court initially affirmed, rejecting claims not raised below.
On rehearing the parties and the court considered whether the 15‑year firearm enhancement added to Lampkins’s ACSA sentence (for an offense committed in 2006) is void under the proportionate‑penalties clause, given pre‑2007 statutory structure.

Issue	People’s Argument	Lampkins’s Argument	Held
Whether the 15‑year firearm add‑on to ACSA (for conduct in 2006) is void under the Illinois Constitution’s proportionate‑penalties clause	The State conceded the add‑on is void for this offense and supported rehearing to correct the sentence	The add‑on is unconstitutional as applied because it produced a harsher penalty than armed violence predicated on criminal sexual assault	The court held the 15‑year add‑on for ACSA committed in 2006 is void and vacated the ACSA sentence, remanding for resentencing
Whether the voidness claim may be raised for the first time on rehearing	Initially, appellate counsel had not raised the claim; State urged judicial economy to resolve it now	Lampkins argued the add‑on is void and that appellate counsel’s failure to raise it was ineffective assistance	The court accepted the rehearing petition, permitting the voidness claim to be considered despite not being in the initial brief

People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (2007) (held firearm enhancement for armed robbery violated proportionate‑penalties clause where identical armed‑violence predicate produced lesser penalty)
People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005) (permitted proportionate‑penalties challenge where offenses have identical elements but different sentences)
People v. Guevara, 216 Ill. 2d 533 (2005) (constitutional challenges to criminal statutes may be raised for the first time on appeal)
People v. Wright, 194 Ill. 2d 1 (2000) (permitting first‑time constitutional challenge on rehearing)
People v. Blair, 2013 IL 114122 (2013) (explained effect of 2007 statutory amendment reviving firearm enhancement prospectively and the continued applicability of Hauschild to pre‑amendment conduct)