Practice News

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Johnson and In re Shelby R.

People v. Johnson

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

At issue was whether Section 4-2002.1(a) of the Counties Code allows for imposition of a $50 State’s Attorney fee for hearing a 2-1401 petition. The statute refers only to imposition of the fee for habeas corpus proceedings.

The Court rejected the argument that “habeas corpus” was meant to refer, generically, to any collateral proceedings, noting that habeas corpus has a specific meaning. Considering the plain language of the statute as the best indication of legislative intent, the Court concluded that the reference to “habeas corpus” was meant to encompass the various types of habeas corpus proceedings (e.g., habeas corpus ad prosequendum, habeas corpus ad respondendum, habeas corpus ad testificandum), and nothing more. Inclusion of any other collateral proceedings would have to come from the
legislature.

While this decision is not particularly broad-reaching, it does demonstrate the Court’s adherence to long-standing principles of statutory construction, beginning with looking first to the plain language of the statute.  Where the plain language is clear, the Court will go no further in interpreting a statute’s meaning.

Back in February, Steven E. Siebers and Emily Scheuring Jones wrote about Cain v. Hamer, a taxpayer friendly Illinois Appellate Court ruling. Cain effectively allowed snowbirds who spend time down south to continue to own their Illinois homes while being treated as nonresidents for Illinois income tax purposes. (A nonresident pays no Illinois tax on income from non-Illinois sources.)

Well, the Illinois Department of Revenue was not amused. In the August ISBA Trusts and Estates newsletter, Siebers and Jones report that in response to Cain, the IDR changed its regs to make it tougher for Illinoisans to qualify as nonresidents. Here's what the new regs provide:

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier announced Tuesday that an application process has begun for a Circuit Court vacancy in Wayne County, Second Judicial Circuit.

The resident Circuit vacancy is being created by the announced resignation of Circuit Judge Bennie Joe Harrison, effective November 30, 2013.

Under the Illinois Constitution, the Supreme Court holds the authority to fill interim judicial vacancies.

Justice Karmeier uses a committee to evaluate and interview applicants before making a recommendation to the Court for vacancies in the Fifth Judicial District.

Applicants must submit a cover letter with the Requested Information of an Applicant Form to:

• Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier
• Supreme Court of Illinois
• P.O. Box 266
• Nashville, IL 62263

The form may be obtained from the office of Chief Judge Stephen G. Sawyer of the Second Judicial Circuit in Mt. Carmel; or from Wayne County Circuit Clerk Sharon Gualdoni; or from Resident Circuit Judge Bennie Joe Harrison at the Wayne County Courthouse; or from Justice Karmeier.

Applicants' cover letter and completed form must be received in Justice Karmeier's office no later than Friday, October 3, 2013. The person appointed to fill the vacancy will serve until the position is filled through the November 2014 General Election. The appointment will terminate December 1, 2014. To be eligible for appointment, a person must be a resident of Wayne County at the time of the appointment.

After Governor Quinn vetoed the appropriation for lawmakers' salaries until they fix the pension system, they responded with a lawsuit challenging his constitutional authority to do so. In the new issue of The Public Servant, newsletter of ISBA's Standing Committee on Government Lawyers, Tiffany Elking looks at the lawsuit and the reasoning behind it.

The plaintiffs make several arguments. The most technical is that the actual line-item veto didn't go far enough, striking only the itemized compensation for members and not the total for their salaries (Elking nicely illustrates this by showing the Governor's strikethroughs). Consequently, "the lump sum for the base salaries [and] additional salary to party leaders" leaves money in the pot that must be used to pay legislators.

And even if the veto passes that test, the plaintiff's argue, it violates Article IV, Section 11 the Illinois Constitution by making salary changes midterm ("changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected").

But the most compelling argument is an appeal to common sense. "If one branch is able to unilaterally have so much power over another, where would it stop?" Elking asks. "[I]t does not seem to make sense to allow any Governor the ability to suddenly withhold the pay of the legislators based on a single legislative issue....[E]very single issue the legislature deals with is important to someone or some constituent."