191 Ill. 2d 155 - People v. Lemons

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2025

23 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

JUSTICE RATHJE,

¶1dissenting:

¶2Section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections authorizes the imposition of an extended-term prison sentence “[w]hen a defendant is convicted of any felony, after having been previously convicted in Illinois or any other jurisdiction of the same or similar class felony or greater class felony, when such conviction has occurred within 10 years after the previous conviction.” (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) (West 1998). In this case, the trial court imposed — and the majority affirms — an extended-term sentence under section 5 — 5— 3.2(b)(1), even though defendant’s 1997 aggravated battery conviction occurred 12 years after defendant’s 1985 burglary conviction. Unlike the majority, I believe that section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) means what it says and precludes the imposition of an extended-term sentence based upon a 12-year-old conviction.11 therefore dissent.

¶3JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this dissent.

¶4At the very least, the State’s insistence that application of section 5 — 5—3.2(b)(1) is “far from clear,” “imprecise,” and “vague” under the facts of this case mandates a decision in defendant’s favor. See People v. Whitney, 188 Ill. 2d 91, 98 (1999) (any ambiguity in a penal statute must be construed in the defendant’s favor).