permitting defendant’s challenge on appeal to validity of section 5 — 8—1(a)(1) (c)(ii) of the Corrections Code where that attack, asserted for the first time on appeal, warranted consideration given its constitutional dimension
How later courts described this case
- permitting defendant’s challenge on appeal to validity of section 5 — 8—1(a)(1) (c)(ii) of the Corrections Code where that attack, asserted for the first time on appeal, warranted consideration given its constitutional dimension
- noting that most provisions of the enactment related to the subject of the act — crime—but that all did not and, therefore, the public act in question violated the single subject rule
- while invalidating the public act at issue, we held the legislature could pass legislation that amended several acts as long as the amendments related to the single subject of “crime”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring:
I agree that this court must affirm the circuit court’s ruling that section 5 — 8—l(a)(l)(c)(ii) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—l(a)(l)(c)(ii) (West 1998), as amended by Public Act 89 — 203, is unconstitutional. I reach this conclusion because the statute was enacted in violation of the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution. I, therefore, fully join in section B of the “Analysis” section in the opinion authored by Justice McMorrow. See 188 Ill. 2d at 510-520. However, I do not join in section A of the “Analysis” (see 188 Ill. 2d at 505-510, and I express no opinion as to the issues discussed therein.
JUSTICES BILANDIC, HEIPLE and RATHJE join in this special concurrence.