{ "id": 2510091, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODNEY L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Williams", "decision_date": "1989-11-22", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201489\u20140154", "first_page": "119", "last_page": "121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "191 Ill. App. 3d 119" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "335 N.E.2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2966304 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 148", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3192526 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0029-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 245, "char_count": 3822, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.635869402634302e-08, "percentile": 0.40473189749672667 }, "sha256": "c4b34f2c1919ff4a238b37752d220a07c72121348e95db7067b36ee7f6ee48eb", "simhash": "1:b986fa3f8bcea7e3", "word_count": 645 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:26:25.592248+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODNEY L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA jury convicted the defendant, Rodney L. Williams, of theft (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 38, par. 16\u20141). At his sentencing hearing, the State introduced evidence showing that the defendant had a prior conviction for residential burglary. Based on that evidence, the trial court found that the defendant\u2019s misdemeanor theft conviction was enhanced to a Class 4 felony (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 38, par. 16\u20141(b)(2)). It thereafter sentenced him to 30 months\u2019 imprisonment. The defendant appeals, arguing that the State was required to prove to the jury, not to the sentencing court, that he had committed a prior felony. The State merely argues on appeal that the defendant has waived this issue.\nWe find that both the defendant and the State have missed the mark with their arguments. The defendant\u2019s argument is based on his belief that Public Act 85\u20141003 (Pub. Act 85\u20141003, eff. July 1, 1988) provided the relevant statutory guidelines for his prosecution. Public Act 85\u20141003 did not state when in the proceedings the State was expected to prove the defendant\u2019s prior conviction. Accordingly, the defendant contends that under People v. Hicks (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 29, 518 N.E.2d 148, his prior conviction was an element of the offense, which the State had to prove to the jury.\nThe only evidence relevant to this appeal is that the defendant committed his offense on November 25, 1988. Public Act 85\u20141003 was passed by the General Assembly on November 6, 1987, approved on January 14, 1988, and scheduled to take effect on July 1, 1988. Subsequently, Public Act 85\u20141030 was passed and approved on June 30, 1988, and took effect in relevant part on July 1, 1988. Public Act 85\u20141030 expressly stated that the prior conviction was not an element of the offense of theft and could not be disclosed to the jury. In the case of irreconcilable conflicts between two acts dealing with the same subject, the act last acted upon by the General Assembly is controlling. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 1, par. 1105; see People v. Bullard (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 277, 335 N.E.2d 465.) Accordingly, Public Act 85\u20141030 superseded Public Act 85 \u2014 1003, and the State properly withheld the defendant\u2019s prior felony conviction from the jury.\nFurther, before the defendant\u2019s instant criminal act, but after Public Act 85\u20141003 and Public Act 85\u20141030 took effect, Public Act 85\u20141209 was approved and took effect. Public Act 85 \u2014 1209, which was passed on July 1, 1988, approved on August 30, 1988, and took effect on August 30, 1988, also stated that a defendant\u2019s prior conviction is not an element of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury. Accordingly, even without the rule of statutory construction stated above, it is clear that Public Act 85\u20141003 was not the controlling statute. We also note that on January 10, 1989, the General Assembly passed Public Act 85\u20141440, which was approved and took effect on February 1, 1989. That act also stated that the prior conviction is not an element of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury.\nBased on our findings, we conclude that the State properly waited until sentencing to introduce evidence of the defendant\u2019s residential burglary conviction. The defendant does not otherwise contest his conviction or sentence.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nWOMBACHER, P.J., and SCOTT, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mark D. Fisher, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Erik I. Blanc, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Nancy Rink Carter, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODNEY L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201489\u20140154\nOpinion filed November 22, 1989.\nMark D. Fisher, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nErik I. Blanc, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Nancy Rink Carter, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0119-01", "first_page_order": 141, "last_page_order": 143 }