{ "id": 1131045, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. WILL ROBINSON et al., Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Robinson", "decision_date": "1999-09-23", "docket_number": "No. 86110", "first_page": "461", "last_page": "464", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 Ill. 2d 461" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 866", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1073600 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/298/0866-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 2d 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2994073 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "46" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/74/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2856190 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 Ill. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5024552 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/299/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 2d 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2767203 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/15/0182-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 327, "char_count": 4936, "ocr_confidence": 0.789, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.723654038843855e-07, "percentile": 0.7043165450958724 }, "sha256": "dad5a8373cf3ae91f54c7b62d6011db41c41103d107796d28341c7cfd2814d24", "simhash": "1:50639b8ee18dc8c0", "word_count": 783 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:13.411978+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. WILL ROBINSON et al., Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn these consolidated appeals, defendants died while the direct appeals of their criminal convictions were pending before the appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeals but declined to void the defendants\u2019 convictions (298 Ill. App. 3d 866) entered in the circuit court of Cook County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and reaffirm the rule this court established in People v. Mazzone, 74 Ill. 2d 44 (1978), that when a defendant dies while his direct appeal is pending, the appeal must be dismissed and his conviction must be abated ab initio.\nFACTS\nDefendant John Dunn was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 24 years in prison. Defendant Amanda Wallace was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to natural life in prison. Defendant Glennon Dye was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Each defendant died while his or her direct appeal was pending in the appellate court: defendants Wallace and Dye committed suicide and defendant Dunn died of cancer.\nCounsel representing defendants filed separate motions in the appellate court to dismiss defendants\u2019 appeals and vacate their convictions. The appellate court consolidated the individual motions and dismissed defendants\u2019 appeals, but refused to vacate their convictions. The appellate court held that the enactment of the Crime Victim\u2019s Rights Amendment to the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8.1 (eff. November 3, 1992)) required the court to consider the rights of the victims when deciding whether defendants\u2019 convictions should be abated ab initio. The appellate court held that it would not abate defendants\u2019 convictions because abatement would have a \u201csenselessly harsh impact on the psychological well-being\u201d of crime victims and their families by implying that defendants have somehow been exonerated.\nThis court granted the petition for leave to appeal filed by counsel representing defendants. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a).\nANALYSIS\nIn People v. Mazzone, 74 Ill. 2d 44 (1978), this court held that when a defendant dies while his direct appeal is pending before the appellate court, all of the criminal proceedings abate ab initio, from their inception. The rule adopted by this court in Mazzone recognizes that the purpose of criminal prosecutions is to punish the defendant; continuing criminal proceedings when the defendant is dead is a useless act. Mazzone, 74 Ill. 2d at 46. The State argues that Mazzone was wrongly decided and should be overruled based on the changes in the law contained in the Crime Victim\u2019s Rights Amendment.\nThe Crime Victim\u2019s Rights Amendment provides crime victims with a set of 10 distinct rights in criminal prosecutions. The State points specifically to two of these freshly minted constitutional rights of victims: the right to \u201cbe treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process\u201d (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8.1(a)(1)), and the right to restitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8.1(a)(10)). Unfortunately for the State\u2019s argument, the Crime Victim\u2019s Rights Amendment has neither application nor reference to the abatement of criminal prosecutions. That is to say, it is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.\nThis court has acknowledged that compelling reasons may require a departure from prior precedent, but it has also recognized that it will not depart from precedent \u201cmerely because the court is of the opinion that it might decide otherwise were the question a new one.\u201d Maki v. Frelk, 40 Ill. 2d 193, 196-97 (1968), citing Prall v. Burckhartt, 299 Ill. 19 (1921). The rule established in Mazzone that a defendant\u2019s conviction abates ab initio if defendant dies while his direct appeal is pending has been the law in Illinois for over twenty years and \u201cshould be deemed controlling until and unless the General Assembly provides otherwise.\u201d Kinsey Distilling Sales Co. v. Foremost Liquors Stores, Inc., 15 Ill. 2d 182, 188 (1958).\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated above, the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts are vacated.\nJudgments vacated.\nThe statute enacted by the General Assembly to enforce the Crime Victim\u2019s Rights Amendment (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1996)) is also irrelevant to the matter of abatement of criminal prosecutions.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Lester Finkle, Emily Eisner and Evelyn G. Baniewicz, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellants.", "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (William L. Browers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb, Judy L. DeAngelis and Mary L. Boland, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 86110.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. WILL ROBINSON et al., Appellants.\nOpinion filed September 23, 1999.\nRita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Lester Finkle, Emily Eisner and Evelyn G. Baniewicz, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellants.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (William L. Browers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb, Judy L. DeAngelis and Mary L. Boland, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0461-01", "first_page_order": 473, "last_page_order": 476 }