Chicago DUI attorney thinks sometimes justice is served--even if it is unpopular

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about the ever increasing consequences of a DUI.  Now it appears one person has finally found a court that thought the sentence was excessive.

September 23, Aurora, IL:

The Illinois Appellate Court has overturned an Aurora man’s sentence for Class X drunken driving, saying conflicting state laws may have sent him to prison for too long.

In 2006, J.D. Clark, 63, was sentenced to a little more than 6-1/2 years in prison after he was convicted of drunken driving for the eighth time. He was the first person convicted of Class X drunken driving in Kane County, a new charge aimed at repeat offenders.

At the time, Illinois law specified that anyone convicted of six or more drunken driving charges would be eligible for a Class X felony. But the statutes also said anyone convicted of drunken driving five or more times would be eligible to be charged with a Class 1 felony. Technically, Clark met both of those ranges.

The sentence range for a Class X felony is six to 30 years. The range of sentences for a Class 1 felony is four to 15 years.

In an opinion posted this week, the court upheld Clark’s conviction, but ruled that he must be re-sentenced under the Class 1 guidelines because it is the more lenient of the options.

Some people think that Clark’s behavior was so egregious that the sentence should stand.  Unfortunately, the reporting didn’t make it clear that the justices didn’t reduce his sentence but changed the Class of Offense he could be sentenced under based on changes in the law.

From People v. Clark, No. 2-08-0993:

 Defendant's first claim of error was resolved in Maldonado, in which we held that Public Act 94--114 conflicted irreconcilably with Public Act 94--116 (Pub. Act 94--116, §5, eff. January 1, 2006), which made a fifth or subsequent DUI a Class 1 felony (see 625 ILCS 5/11--501(c--1)(4)(West 2006)). Under the rule of lenity (see People v. Hillenbrand, 121 Ill. 2d 537, 560 (1988)), we resolved the conflict in favor of the lesser penalty. Maldonado, slip op. at 10. We do the same here.

In urging affirmance, the State raises arguments that we rejected in Maldonado. As we are still unpersuaded by these arguments, and out of respect for the principle of stare decisis (see People v. Williams, 235 Ill. 2d 286, 294-95 (2009)), we follow Maldonado. We affirm defendant's conviction of DUI but reduce it to a Class 1 felony and remand for resentencing.

 The court is simply looking to treat the defendant in the same manner as all other similar defendants would be treated.  That’s what we call in this country, justice.