People v. Lilly, 309 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Lilly, 309 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2018–2019 · …it is true that 'the final judgment in a criminal case is a sentence' and that in the absence of the imposition of sentence an appeal cannot be entertained. however, this case is properly before us on appeal with regard to the defendant's claim as to his conviction for rape and … ≈ altered
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2018–2019 · …the trial court erred in entering judgment on the verdict of guilty on the indecent liberties charge ✓
595 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Brown (ill, 2013-12-19) · Strongest negative: People v. Tellery (illappct, 1980-07-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" People v. Tellery (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1980 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
App. 3d 638,646 , 384 N.E.2d 793 ; but cf. People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493, 495 , 309 N.E.2d 1 (prejudice arises where judgment entered on guilty verdict even though no sentence imposed).) Therefore, defendant lacks standing to challenge the statute. 3 II.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brown
Ill. · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. ¶ 33. -8- prejudice defendant in the future (see People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149, 160 (1993); People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 495 (1974)), but also affects the integrity of the judicial process (People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156, 165-68 (2009); People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 389 (2004)). ¶ 33 Additionally, we observe that defendant was sentenced in May 2010.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Elliott
Ill. App. Ct. · 1998 · confidence medium
In People v. Lilly , 56 Ill. 2d 493, 495-96 , 309 N.E.2d 1, 2-3 (1974), defendant was convicted of rape and indecent liberties.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Elliott
Ill. App. Ct. · 1998 · confidence medium
In People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 495-96 , 309 N.E.2d 1, 2-3 (1974), defendant was convicted of rape and indecent liberties.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States ex rel. Walker v. O'Leary
N.D. Ill. · 1990 · confidence medium
See People v. Jones, 60 Ill.2d 300, 310 , 325 N.E.2d 601, 606 (1975); People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493, 497 , 309 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1974); People v. Killebrew, 55 Ill.2d 337, 343 , 303 N.E.2d 377, 381 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Enoch (2×)
Ill. · 1988 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill.2d 493, 496 (applying Rule 366(a)); People v. Murrell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 287, 292 (applying Rule 366(a)(5)); People v. Scott (1977), 69 Ill.2d 85, 88 (applying Rule 366(a)).) In Scott , the court said: "Although Rule 366 is not specifically made applicable to criminal appeals (58 Ill.2d R. 612), in People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill.2d 493 , the court, citing Rule 366, held that it had authority to vacate an incomplete judgment entered on a verdict." ( Scott, 69 Ill.2d at 88 .) These decisions applied only Rule 366( a ), but there is no reason why Rule 366…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Griffin
Ill. App. Ct. · 1977 · confidence medium
(People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 496 (citing therein People v. Becker, 414 Ill. 291 , and People v. Rose, 43 Ill. 2d 273 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Roop
Ill. App. Ct. · 1976 · confidence medium
(People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 495 (1974); People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62, 78 (1972).) In People v. Prim, the defendant and several companions armed with guns robbed the passengers of a bus.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pack
Ill. App. Ct. · 1976 · confidence medium
(People v. Becker, 414 Ill. 291 , 111 N.E.2d 491 (1953); People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493, 496 , 309 N.E.2d 1, 2 (1974).) In the absence of a sentence an appeal cannot be entertained.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Simmons
Ill. App. Ct. · 1975 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams, 60 Ill.2d 1, 13 (1975); People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493, 495-96 (1974); People v. Perkins, 22 Ill.App.3d 88 (1974).) Separate convictions and sentences are proper, however, when the activities which constitute the multiple offenses are separately motivated, although occurring in a series of very closely related acts.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Holliman
Ill. App. Ct. · 1974 · confidence medium
People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493, 495-96 (1974).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Ross
Ill. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Flores, 128 Ill. 2d at 95 . -2- ¶ 10 We reject defendant’s reliance on People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493 (1974) in support of his argument that we must vacate his unsentenced home invasion conviction.
cited Cited "see" People v. Gonzalez
Ill. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 496 (1974); In re T.G., 285 Ill. 2d at 845-46; People v. Burrage, 269 Ill.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Ross (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Flores , 128 Ill. 2d at 95 , 131 Ill.Dec. 106 , 538 N.E.2d 481 . ¶ 10 We reject defendant's reliance on People v. Lilly , 56 Ill. 2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 (1974) in support of his argument that we must vacate his unsentenced home invasion conviction.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Hebel (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cartalino (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
People v. Dixon (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 346, 353-54 ; see People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493, 496 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. McNair (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Sanchez (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Kellas (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 496 , 309 N.E.2d 1, 2-3 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Kosanovich (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493, 495 , 309 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 , 363 N.E.2d 838 , cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894 , 54 L.
examined Cited "see" People v. Akins (4×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Soto (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
cited Cited "see" People v. Schubert
Ill. App. Ct. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill.2d 493, 496 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Ritchie (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Lerch, 52 Ill.2d 78 , 284 N.E.2d 293 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Johnson (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 ; Green, supra, and Games, supra. VI.
cited Cited "see" People v. Powell
Ill. App. Ct. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Lerch, 52 Ill.2d 78 , 284 N.E.2d 293 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Holiday (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Rodriguez (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1980 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare People v. Thomas (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 388 , 367 N.E.2d 1281 and People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 , with People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Britton (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493, 496 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .) Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the sentence for one of the two counts with respect to defendant’s acts with Herbert and the judgment of conviction and the sentence for one of the two counts with respect to his acts with Edward are vacated.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Woods (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
App. 3d 612 , 378 N.E.2d 248 ; see also People v. Lilly, 56 Ill. 2d 493, 496 , 309 N.E.2d 1, 2 , where the supreme court held it had authority to vacate an incomplete judgment on an indecent liberties verdict by virtue of the fact that it had the cause properly before it to review defendant’s claim as to his rape conviction; see also the passage from Scott set out above.) Moreover, we note that the defendant indicated in his notice of appeal that he was appealing a judgment of guilty on one count of attempt (armed robbery) and one count of attempt (murder), thus conferring us jurisdiction as…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Martinez (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 , 309 N.E.2d 1 . * For the foregoing reasons, the appeal taken from the order of the circuit court of Cook County denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of operating a motor vehicle while his driver’s license was suspended is dismissed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. McElroy (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 1974 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare People v. Marin, 56 Ill.2d 490 , 309 N.E.2d 9 , and People v. Lilly, 56 Ill.2d 493, 496 , 309 N.E.2d 1 .) The illegal portion of the minimum sentence here is legally comparable to that portion of a maximum sentence in excess of the legal limit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee,
v.
JAMES LILLY, Appellant
45788.
Illinois Supreme Court.
Mar 20, 1974.
309 N.E.2d 1
1974 Ill. LEXIS 461
Bruce Stratton, District Defender, of Ottawa (James Geis, Assistant District Defender, of counsel), for appellant., William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Michael M. Mihm, State’s Attorney, of Peoria (James B. Zagel and Raymond McKoski, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.
Ward.
Cited by 279 opinions  |  Published
MR. JUSTICE WARD

delivered the opinion of the court:

The first count of an indictment returned against James Lilly, the defendant, in the circuit court of Peoria County, charged the rape on December 16, 1970, of a 15-year-old girl and the second count charged indecent liberties with the same victim.

When a jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts of the indictment, the trial judge, after entering judgment on both verdicts, stated that as both verdicts were based on a single act of the defendant he would be sentenced only on the charge of rape. A sentence of not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years was imposed.

The appellate court affirmed as to both the rape and indecent liberties offenses (9 Ill. App. 3d 46) and we granted leave to appeal.

The defendant is correct in his first contention, which is that the trial court erred in entering judgment on the verdict of guilty on the indecent liberties charge. It is not disputed that the rape count and indecent liberties count of the indictment were founded on a single act of the defendant. Under such circumstances there can be but one conviction of crime. (People v. Duszkewycz, 27 Ill.2d 257; People v. Schlenger, 13 Ill.2d 63.) The trial court was not unaware of this and after entering judgment on both verdicts of guilty said “*** the defendant should be sentenced for only one of said offenses and that should be for the greater offense, which in this case is the offense of rape, and the court, therefore, will sentence the defendant only for the offense of rape.” However, the entering of judgment on the verdict of guilty under the indecent liberties charge, the defendant points out, may operate to his prejudice, though no sentence was imposed. For example, police records, including fingerprint reports, well might carry notations of what will appear to be convictions of separate and unrelated crimes of rape and indecent liberties.

The People’s response to what we consider to be the defendant’s reasonable contention is that because no sentence was imposed on the indecent liberties charge there was no final judgment from which the defendant can appeal. It is true that “The final judgment in a criminal case is a sentence” (People v. Becker, 414 Ill. 291, which we cited in People v. Rose, 43 Ill.2d 273) and that in the absence of the imposition of sentence an appeal cannot be entertained. (People ex rel. Filkin v. Flessner, 48 Ill.2d 54.) However, this case is properly before us on appeal with regard to the defendant’s claim as to his conviction for rape and we have authority under Rule 366 to vacate the incomplete judgment entered on the indecent liberties verdict. (50 Ill.2d R. 366; see also People v. Scott, 43 Ill.2d 135, 144.) Accordingly we will vacate the judgment of conviction as to the count of the indictment which charged the defendant with the lesser offense of indecent liberties.

The defendant next contends that his sentence was improper. The Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1001—1—1 et seq.), which became effective on January 1, 1973, classifies rape as a Class 1 felony (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 11—1(c)). The Code provides that “for a Class 1 felony, the minimum term shall be 4 years unless the court, having regard to the nature and the circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, sets a higher minimum term.” (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005—8—1(c)(2).) It also states: “If the offense being prosecuted has not reached the sentencing stage or a final adjudication, then for purposes of sentencing the sentences under this Act apply if they are less than under the prior law upon which the prosecution was commenced.” (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1008—2—4.) The defendant may invoke this provision of the Code, as his case has not been finally adjudicated. People v. Harvey, 53 Ill.2d 585.

He argues that he is entitled to have the minimum term of his sentence reduced to four years, as the minimum sentence he received is in excess of the minimum penalty provided for a Class 1 felony under the Code.

However, in so arguing the defendant overlooks the language of section 8 — 2—4 (par. 1008 — 2—4), quoted above, which states that the sentence provisions of the Code apply only if they call for a lesser sentence than that provided for under the prior law upon which the prosecution was commenced. (See also People v. Killebrew, 55 Ill.2d 337, 343.) The offense of rape, at the time the prosecution here was commenced, was an offense punishable “for any indeterminate term with a minimum of not less than four years.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 11—1.) The minimum term for rape called for by the Code is thus not less than under the prior law and the defendant does not qualify for a reduction of sentence under the Code.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed as to the conviction of rape; the judgment is reversed as to the offense of indecent liberties and the judgment entered by the circuit court of Peoria County as to this offense is vacated.

Affirmed in part and reversed and vacated in part.