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
JUSTICE HEIPLE, also specially concurring:
I agree with Justice McMorrow’s conclusion that Public Act 89 — 203 was passed in violation of the single-subject clause of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV § 8. Because the court today strikes down this Act under the single subject clause, it is entirely inappropriate for the court to render an opinion on the constitutionality of section 5 — 8—l(a)(l)(c)(ii) of the Unified Code of Corrections under article I, section 11 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11. I agree with Justices Rathje and Bilandic and Chief Justice Freeman that a majority of this court today expresses no opinion as to the issues discussed in section A of Justice McMorrow’s opinion. Section A of that opinion has failed to gain the approval of a majority of the court and therefore does not constitute the law of Illinois.
JUSTICE RATHJE joins in this special concurrence.