Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following a bench trial, defendant, Kelvin Carter, was found guilty of the 2002 murder of Edmond Allen. Identification evidence was supplied by four occurrence witnesses. The circuit court ultimately imposed a 20-year prison sentence in addition to a 25-year enhancement, which was statutorily mandated because of the court’s determination that defendant had personally discharged a firearm during the commission of the crime. The court had initially sentenced defendant to a 30-year term of imprisonment, but immediately amended its determination, imposing the 20-year minimum instead after realizing that defendant was subject to the enhancement. The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence in 2006. On May 9, 2012, defendant mailed a “Motion to Vacate Judgment” in which he argued that the 25-year firearm enhancement to his sentence was void because the trial court only found him guilty of murder. Defendant also argued that the trial court was bound by its initial statement of 30 years’ imprisonment regardless of the statutorily required enhancement. Defendant attached a “Proof/Certificate of Service” to his pleading, alleging that he placed it in the “institutional mail” at the Menard Correctional Center. He listed as addressees, the “Clerk of Court” and “State’s Atty. Office.” Defendant’s pleading was stamped “received” by the circuit clerk on May 15. It was docketed on May 29, to be called on June 5. The docket and transcript for that date showed that the case was scheduled for “court review” on July 10. On that day, the court dismissed the petition on the merits. The cover page of the transcript of proceedings reflected that defendant’s “2-1401 petition is dismissed,” but the transcript did not show that the assistant State’s Attorney took any action. In a written order entered July 10, the circuit court recited the law applicable to section 2-1401 proceedings. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of his section 2-1401 petition on the merits was premature, given that the petition was not properly served on the State. Then, without speaking to the merits of defendant’s petition or the substance of the circuit court’s ruling, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court erred in prematurely dismissing petitioner’s petition. The Supreme Court reviewed the sua sponte dismissal, found that the trial court did not err in its dismissal, and reversed the appellate court. View "Illinois v. Carter" on Justia Law

The issue before the Illinois Supreme Court in this case was a circuit court’s order declaring certain sections of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) statute as unconstitutional. The circuit court found that sections 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) and (a)(2), (a)(3)(C) of the AUUW statute, which were based on defendant’s lack of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID card), violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. The court determined that the offense of AUUW based on the lack of a FOID card was identical to a violation of the FOID Card Act, and since the penalties for violating the two statutes were different, the court declared the AUUW statute unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against defendant. The Supreme Court concluded that the offense of AUUW based on the lack of a FOID card and a violation of the FOID Card Act do not have identical elements and thus, there can be no proportionate penalty violation. The circuit court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for reinstatement of the charges against defendant. View "Illinois v. Williams" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the “void sentence rule,” should be abandoned. Defendant Steven Castleberry was convicted on two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault based on separate acts of oral and vaginal contact with the victim. At sentencing, the State argued that defendant was subject to a mandatory 15-year sentencing enhancement on each of the two counts because the crimes had been committed by defendant while he was armed with a firearm. When added to the mandatory minimum term of 6 years’ imprisonment for each offense, this meant, according to the State, that defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum term of 21 years’ imprisonment on each count. The circuit court disagreed with the State regarding the application of the 15-year enhancement, concluding that the legislature had intended the enhancement to be applied only once under the circumstances presented. The circuit court sentenced defendant to a 9-year term of imprisonment on each count, adding the 15-year enhancement to only one of the counts. The two sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for a total term of 33 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant did not challenge the appellate court’s affirmance of his convictions. Instead, defendant argued that the appellate court erred when it held that the sentence imposed without the statutory enhancement was void. Defendant contended that the rule relied upon by the appellate court (that a sentence which does not conform to statutory requirements was void) was no longer valid in light of recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions and, thus, could not provide a basis for the appellate court to reverse the circuit court’s sentencing order. After review, the Court concluded that its recent decisions indeed undermined the rationale behind the rule to the point that the rule could no longer be considered valid. The Court therefore abolished the rule. View "Illinois v. Castleberry" on Justia Law

The guardian ad litem (GAL) for the minor, A.A., petitioned the circuit court to vacate a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) signed by respondents Matthew A. and Caitlin S. with regard to A.A. The appellate court affirmed and held that after DNA testing established that Matthew was not the biological father of A.A., the trial court was not required to make a “best interests of the child” determination prior to granting the petition. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Jorge Guzman argued that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in “Illinois v. Delvillar,” (235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009)), should have been overturned based on the United States Supreme Court’s later decision in “Padilla v. Kentucky,” (559 U.S. 356 (2010)). In “Delvillar,” the Illinois Court examined the impact of the failure to give a statutory admonishment on the potential immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea. The Court concluded that the failure to admonish did not affect the voluntariness of the plea, and defendants wishing to withdraw their pleas on that basis were required to demonstrate prejudice or a denial of justice. After review of defendant Guzman’s arguments that the trial court erred in denying him the ability to withdraw his guilty plea, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "Illinois v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (Burke Engineering) filed a complaint to foreclose on a mechanics lien on property owned by Carol and Glen Harkins. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois had a mortgage interest in the property. The circuit court invalidated the lien on grounds that the requirements for a mechanics lien set forth in section 1 of the Mechanics Lien Act were not met. Specifically, the court found that the services provided by Burke Engineering did not constitute an improvement to the property and that the provision of services was not induced or encouraged by the property owner. The appellate court affirmed. Burke Engineering argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the circuit court erred in granting Heritage Bank’s motion for summary judgment. After review, the Supreme Court reversed. Because Burke Engineering’s services were done for the purpose of improving the property, the services were lienable. However, it was unclear whether Carol Schenck, owner of the property at the time the contract for services was entered into, knowingly permitted Harkins to enter into contracts regarding the property. Because the resolution of this issue involved unanswered material questions of fact, Heritage Bank was not entitled to summary judgment. View "Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd v. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois" on Justia Law

In 2000, plaintiffs filed a class action, Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. including various claims of fraud and deception by the tobacco company in its use of the terms “lights” and “lowered tar and nicotine” in marketing cigarettes. In 2005 the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the claims were barred by FTC regulations relating to the terms. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2008, plaintiffs sought relief from judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401, arguing that subsequent actions by the FTC constituted new evidence warranting vacatur.. The circuit court denied the petition on the merits; the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated both decisions. Section 2-1401 does not authorize the circuit court to vacate the judgment of a reviewing court. A litigant seeking to vacate the judgment of a reviewing court after the rehearing period has expired and the mandate has issued, must move to recall the mandate in the reviewing court which rendered the contested judgment. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of such a motion, should one be filed. View "Price v. Philip Morris, Inc." on Justia Law

M.A., then 13 years old, fought with her 14-year-old brother and cut him with a kitchen knife. M.A. was adjudicated delinquent of several offenses and ordered to register under the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act, 730 ILCS 154/1. M.A. argued that the registration provisions violated her rights to substantive and procedural due process and equal protection. The Appellate Court rejected the substantive due process claim, but found the registration provisions unconstitutional for violating procedural due process and equal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the registration requirement. Current dangerousness is not relevant to the duty to register, so M.A. did not have a due process right to a hearing to address that issue. The Act requires registration solely based upon the fact of conviction or adjudication, which M.A. had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest during her juvenile adjudication proceedings. M.A. did not challenge her adjudication as a juvenile delinquent on appeal. Given that the charges for which M.A. is required to register would be felonies if M.A. committed those acts as an adult, and that those charges require a finding that the offender caused “great bodily harm, permanent disability, or disfigurement,” there is a rational relationship between M.A.’s registration and protection of the public. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

From 1966-1970, Folta was a shipping clerk and product tester for Ferro Engineering and was exposed to products containing asbestos. In 2011, Folta was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease associated with asbestos exposure. He sued Ferro, alleging negligence. Ferro moved to dismiss under ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9), arguing that the claimswere barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/5(a)) and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (820 ILCS 310/5(a)). Ferro maintained that his action fell outside the exclusive remedy provisions because his claims were not “compensable” under the statutes: the symptoms did not manifest until more than 40 years after his last exposure to asbestos, and any potential asbestos-related compensation claim was barred under the 25-year limitation provision. The circuit court dismissed, holding that the action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that the term “compensability” must relate to the “ability to recover under the Act.” The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, noting that the acts do not prevent an employee from seeking a remedy against other third parties for an injury or disease and that Folta had also sued manufacturers. View "Folta v. Ferro Eng'g" on Justia Law

Henderson Square Condominium Association sued the developers, alleging: breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud, negligence, breach of the Chicago Municipal Code’s prohibition against misrepresenting material facts in the course of marketing and selling real estate. The court dismissed with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the Chicago Municipal Code violation and breach of fiduciary duty and that those counts were time-barred. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of those counts and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The claims at issue are construction-related and governed by the limitation and repose of section 13-214 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the fraud exception applied and issues of material fact remained concerning misrepresentations or actions that could support a finding of fraudulent concealment. The defendants were alleged to be “more than silent” regarding insulation and funding of the reserves. The Municipal Code allows private parties to seek damages under its provisions and there were allegations that defendants had a fiduciary duty to budget for reasonable reserves, given allegedly known latent defects. View "Henderson Square Condo. Assoc'n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC" on Justia Law