2023 IL App (4th) 220144-U
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Adam M. Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of Class X theft and was sentenced on June 29, 2021 to 11 years’ imprisonment and a 3‑year mandatory supervised release (MSR).
- On July 1, 2021, the Safe‑T Act amended the MSR statute to reduce MSR for certain Class X felonies from 3 years to 18 months.
- Lopez filed a motion to reconsider his sentence (and later an amended motion after this court remanded for a Rule 604(d) defect); the trial court denied relief and Lopez appealed.
- Lopez argued he should have the right to elect sentencing under the amended MSR provision because his post‑plea motions were pending when the amendment took effect.
- The trial and appellate courts considered whether the amended statute applied to persons "convicted on or after" July 1, 2021, and whether Lopez was entitled to elect the mitigated term or, alternatively, whether counsel was ineffective for not asserting that entitlement.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Lopez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez was entitled to elect sentencing under the Safe‑T Act MSR amendment | The statute expressly applies to individuals "convicted on or after" July 1, 2021; Lopez was convicted (adjudicated and sentenced) June 29, 2021, so the amendment does not apply | Lopez argued his judgment was not "pronounced"/final while his post‑plea motions were pending, so he should be allowed to elect the amended, mitigated MSR term | Court held the statutory text controls: conviction occurred June 29, 2021, so the July 1, 2021 amendment does not apply and Lopez had no entitlement to elect the new MSR term |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not advising Lopez of the option to elect the amended MSR term | People: no ineffective assistance because no applicable right existed under the statute | Lopez: counsel should have raised or advised him of his right to elect the reduced MSR | Court held counsel was not ineffective because Lopez had no statutory right to the amended term (no prejudice or error) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hunter, 104 N.E.3d 358 (Ill. 2017) (statutory temporal reach analysis; when legislature specifies scope, that controls)
- People v. Howard, 72 N.E.3d 346 (Ill. 2016) (savings clause: procedural changes may be retroactive; substantive changes normally prospective)
- People v. Bradford, 478 N.E.2d 1341 (Ill. 1985) (defendant sentenced before amendment not eligible to elect amended sentencing provision)
- People v. Panczko, 61 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. 1945) (savings clause limits election to judgments entered after new law takes effect)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Sargent, 940 N.E.2d 1045 (Ill. 2010) (plain error doctrine framing)