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.

Hughes v. Godinez

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

February 14, 2014

MAURICE HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S.A. GODINEZ, Director; GLEN AUSTIN, Warden; and RITA ROSSI, Records Officer, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from Circuit Court of Morgan County. No. 12MR63. Honorable Richard T. Mitchell, Judge Presiding.

SYLLABUS

Summary judgment was properly entered for defendants in proceedings on a prison inmate's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that defendants incorrectly calculated his projected release date on his concurrent sentences for second degree murder and aggravated arson, since basing the calculation of defendant's release date on his second degree murder conviction, rather than the aggravated arson conviction, as he requested, would result in a release date nearly 20 months prior to the statutory minimum sentence he was required to serve for aggravated arson.

Maurice Hughes, of Jacksonville, appellant pro se .

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Ann C. Maskaleris, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees.

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Pope and Turner concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

STEIGMANN JUSTICE.

Page 843

[¶1] In May 2012, plaintiff, Maurice Hughes, an inmate at Jacksonville Correctional Center, pro se filed a petition for writ of mandamus under article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Code) (735 ILCS 5/14-101 to 14-109 (West 2012)), alleging that defendants, S.A. Godinez (Director, Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC)), Glen Austin (former warden, Jacksonville Correctional Center), and Rita Rossi (records officer), acted unlawfully by incorrectly calculating his projected release date from prison.

[¶2] In July 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Civil Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2012)), arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed because DOC had properly calculated plaintiff's projected release date based on the appropriate concurrent sentence imposed by the trial court.

[¶3] Following a September 2012 hearing, the trial court granted defendants' summary-judgment motion. Plaintiff pro se appeals, arguing that the court erred by granting summary judgment in defendants' favor. We disagree and affirm.

[¶4] I. BACKGROUND

[¶5] The following information was gleaned from the parties' pleadings and other supporting documents filed in the trial court.

[¶6] On February 7, 2007, the trial court sentenced plaintiff to the following concurrent prison terms: (1) 17 years for second degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-2 (West 2006)); (2) 12 years for aggravated arson (720 ILCS 5/20-1.1 (West 2006)); (3) 12 years for residential arson (720 ILCS 5/20-1.2(a) (West 2006)); and (4) 5 years for concealment of homicidal death (720 ILCS 5/9-3.1 (West 2006)). The court also granted plaintiff 864 days of pretrial confinement credit against his concurrent sentences. (Because the parties' arguments ...


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.