Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of Illinois v. Jonathan Kerns

February 29, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JONATHAN KERNS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Peoria County, Illinois, Circuit No. 09-CF-726 Honorable Glenn H. Collier, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Lytton

JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Schmidt and Justice Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant Jonathan Kerns was convicted of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12- 13(a)(1) (West 2008)) and sentenced to seven years in prison. On appeal, he argues that (1) his indeterminate term of mandatory supervised release (MSR) imposed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) is void, and (2) the cause should be remanded with directions to the trial court to impose a specific term of MSR pursuant to section 5-8-1(d)(4) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq. (West 2008)). We vacate and remand with directions.

¶ 2 In February 2010, a jury convicted defendant of criminal sexual assault. The trial court's sentencing judgment reflected defendant's sentence of seven years and imposed a two-year term of MSR. After sentencing, the DOC's inmate records listed defendant's MSR term as "3 Yrs to Life-To Be Determined."

¶ 3 ANALYSIS

¶ 4 Defendant claims that the DOC lacked the authority to impose an indeterminate term of MSR of three years to life when the trial court sentenced him to two years of MSR.

¶ 5 The imposition of MSR is statutorily required. See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d) (West

2008). When construing the meaning of a statute, the primary objective of this court is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390 (2006). That intent is best determined by examining the language of the statute itself; where the language is clear and unambiguous it must be given effect. Orlak v. Loyola University Health System, 228 Ill. 2d 1 (2007). A statute should be read as a whole and construed so as to give effect to every word, clause and sentence. People ex rel. Department of Corrections v. Hawkins, 2011 IL 110792. It should not be read so as to render any part superfluous or meaningless. Hawkins, 2011 IL 110792,

¶ 23. Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. People v. Alcozer, 241 Ill. 2d 248 (2011).

¶ 6 Under the Code, a sentence is defined as the "disposition imposed by the court on a convicted defendant." 730 ILCS 5/5-1-19 (West 2008). The pronouncement of a sentence is the judicial act that conforms to the judgment of the court. People v. Allen, 71 Ill. 2d 378 (1978). A sentence imposed by the court in a criminal case must be authorized by law.

People v. Majer, 131 Ill. App. 3d 80 (1985). The dispositions available to courts include probation, conditional discharge and a term of imprisonment. 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3 (West 2008).

¶ 7 Section 5-8-1(d) of the Code states that "every sentence shall include as though written therein a term [of MSR] in addition to the term of imprisonment." 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d) (West 2008); see also People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (2005) (MSR is part of a defendant's sentence). The MSR term for the offense of criminal sexual assault "shall range from a minimum of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.