{
  "id": 209979,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. STANLEY E. OLIVO, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Olivo",
  "decision_date": "1998-09-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 83592",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 339"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "172 Ill. 2d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        55989
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/172/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 Ill. 2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        57342
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "224",
          "parenthetical": "enhanced sentencing under section 5 - 5- 3(c)(8) does not elevate the class of a crime"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/171/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 Ill. App. 3d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1596996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/288/0414-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 4345,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.057092790978948e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7560660872506466
    },
    "sha256": "e14f89d28037e20cc5610cf388c4756b7808a85259ab0352a41a138a20de00ef",
    "simhash": "1:65043eb1d0ee4ccc",
    "word_count": 728
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:52.407821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. STANLEY E. OLIVO, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe issue in this case is whether the circuit court may impose a Class X extended-term sentence upon a defendant who has never been convicted of a Class X felony. Defendant, Stanley Olivo, pled guilty to unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and reckless homicide. 625 ILCS 5/4 \u2014 103(a)(1) (West 1994); 720 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 3(a) (West 1994). Though unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle is a Class 2 felony, the circuit court of Grundy County found defendant eligible for a Class X sentence based on defendant\u2019s prior Class 2 felony convictions. See 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 5\u20143(c)(8) (West 1994). The circuit court further found defendant eligible for a Class X extended-term sentence pursuant to 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections. 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) (West 1994). Defendant appealed, contending that he was not eligible for the Class X extended-term sentence because he had never been convicted of a Class X felony. The appellate court affirmed the sentence. 288 Ill. App. 3d 414. We reverse.\nSection 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) provides:\n\u201cThe following factors may be considered by the court as reasons to impose an extended term sentence under Section 5 \u2014 8\u20142 upon any offender:\n(1) When 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, excluding time spent in custody, and such charges are separately brought and tried and arise out of different series of acts.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) (West 1994).\nThus, a defendant is eligible for an extended-term sentence when he is convicted of any felony where that defendant has previously been convicted of the same or greater class felony.\nInitially, we note that although defendant\u2019s sentence was enhanced to a Class X term, his convictions remain Class 2 felonies. See People v. Thomas, 171 Ill. 2d 207, 224 (1996) (enhanced sentencing under section 5 \u2014 5\u2014 3(c)(8) does not elevate the class of a crime). Simply put, defendant has never been convicted of a Class X felony. A straightforward reading of the plain language of section 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) dictates that defendant is ineligible for a Class X extended-term sentence because he has not previously been convicted \u201cof the same or similar class felony or greater class felony\u201d as Class X. 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 5\u2014 3.2(b)(1) (West 1994).\nThe State counters that because defendant was properly found eligible for a Class X sentence pursuant to section 5 \u2014 5\u20143(c)(8), a Class X extended-term sentence is the only logical extended term to apply. This position, however, is inapposite to the plain language of section 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1), which unambiguously requires that a defendant have been convicted of a Class X felony. Nor is our discussion in People v. Granados, 172 Ill. 2d 358 (1996), of any avail to the State. Granados holds that the phrase \u201cany felony\u201d in the extended-term sentencing provision includes misdemeanor convictions that had been enhanced to felony convictions. The instant case, however, involves the enhancement of a sentence rather than a conviction. Defendant remains a Class 2 felony offender. Granados thus has no bearing on the application of section 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) in the instant case.\nAccordingly, while defendant is eligible for a standard Class X sentence, section 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(1) does not authorize a Class X extended-term sentence. The judgment of the appellate court is reversed, the sentence entered by the circuit court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing.\nAppellate court judgment reversed;\ncircuit court judgment vacated;\ncause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, Deputy Defender, and Stephen Omolecki and Barbara M. O\u2019Brien, Assistant Defenders, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Lance Peterson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morris (Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, and William L. Browers and Lisa Anne Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 83592.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. STANLEY E. OLIVO, Appellant.\nOpinion filed September 24, 1998.\nRobert Agostinelli, Deputy Defender, and Stephen Omolecki and Barbara M. O\u2019Brien, Assistant Defenders, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Lance Peterson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morris (Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, and William L. Browers and Lisa Anne Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 355,
  "last_page_order": 357
}