from Circuit Court of Woodford County No. 05CF159 Honorable
Charles M. Feeney, III, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Turner and Pope concurred in the judgment and
1 In March 2006, a jury convicted defendant, James E. Cashaw,
of criminal sexual assault, after which the trial court
imposed a 12-year prison sentence and a $200
domestic-violence fine. Defendant did not challenge the fine
on direct review. In the years that followed, defendant
initiated multiple collateral attacks on his conviction, none
of which challenged the domestic-violence fine.
2 In May 2014, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a
successive postconviction petition, which the trial court
later denied. On appeal, defendant for the first time
challenges his domestic-violence fine. He argues that because
the fine was not authorized by statute, it is void under the
"void-sentence rule." Defendant acknowledges that
in People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, 43 N.E.3d
932, the supreme court abolished the void-sentence rule, but
he contends that Castleberry does not apply
"retroactively" to his case. We disagree with
defendant and conclude that Castleberry applies to
this appeal. As a result, we honor defendant's forfeiture
of his claim and affirm his sentence.
3 I. BACKGROUND
4 After a March 2006 trial, the jury found defendant guilty
of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1) (West
2004)). The trial court later sentenced him to 12 years in
prison and imposed a $200 domestic-violence fine. This court
affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal.
People v. Cashaw, No. 4-06-0427 (Mar. 11, 2008)
(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Defendant
did not challenge the propriety of the domestic-violence fine
in that appeal.
5 Defendant then initiated the following series of
postconviction actions, all of which were unsuccessful, and
none of which challenged the domestic-violence fine.
Specifically, in May 2008, defendant filed a petition
pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1
to 122-7 (West 2008)). The trial court dismissed that
petition. In October 2008, defendant filed a second
postconviction petition. The court granted the State's
motion to dismiss, and this court affirmed on appeal.
People v. Cashaw, No. 4-09-0425 (Mar. 1, 2010)
(unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23). In
December 2010, defendant filed a petition for relief from
judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2010)). The trial court dismissed
that petition, and this court affirmed on appeal. People
v. Cashaw, No. 4-11-0167 (Apr. 11, 2012) (unpublished
summary order under Supreme Court Rule 23(c)(2)).
6 In May 2014, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a
successive postconviction petition, which is the subject of
this appeal. The motion alleged ineffective assistance of
counsel. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that
the motion established neither cause nor prejudice. ¶ 7
This appeal followed.
8 II. ANALYSIS
9 Defendant argues, for the first time at any stage of these
protracted proceedings, that his $200 domestic-violence fine
must be vacated. According to defendant, the trial court did
not have statutory authorization to impose that fine;
therefore, he argues, the fine is void and may be attacked at
10 The State concedes that the trial court lacked statutory
authorization to impose the fine but argues that under
Castleberry, the fine is not void and therefore
cannot be challenged for the first time at this stage of the
11 Defendant agrees with the State that under
Castleberry, the domestic-violence fine in this case
is not void and cannot be challenged in this appeal. However,
defendant notes that Castleberry was decided after
the conclusion of defendant's appeal of his criminal
conviction and sentence. He argues that, therefore,
Castleberry does not automatically apply
"retroactively" to these collateral proceedings. As
a result, defendant asks us to hold that Castleberry
is inapplicable to this appeal-meaning that the
"void-sentence rule" abolished by
Castleberry still applies in full force to
defendant's sentence-and to vacate the domestic-violence
fine as void.
12 To resolve this appeal, we must decide the following issue
of law: whether the holding of Castleberry may be
applied in a collateral proceeding when the defendant is
attacking a sentence imposed in an underlying case that
concluded prior to Castleberry-in short, whether
Castleberry applies ...