void sentence rule in Illinois

2025Our supreme court abolished the void sentence rule in People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 , finding it to be “constitutionally unsound” because “the ‘inherent power’ view of jurisdiction, on which the rule was based, could not be reconciled with the constitutional grant of jurisdiction and was at odds with [supreme court] opinions *** rejecting that view of jurisdiction in the civil context.” People v. Price, 2016 IL 118613, ¶ 17 . ¶ 35 CONCLUSION ¶ 36 As this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment. ¶ 37 Motion gran

2025Defendant also contends counsel made factual errors while arguing the motion, indicating counsel had not reviewed the transcripts from the record. ¶ 14 In response, the State argues defendant is not entitled to relief from his section 2-1401 petition because the void sentence rule was abolished pursuant to People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 . ¶ 15 The State is correct that Castleberry eliminated the “void sentence rule,” which stated where a sentence fails to conform to statutory requirements, it is void.

2019This court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's section 2-1401 petition, but agreed with the State that defendant's sentence was void and remanded, based on the void sentence rule set forth in People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 112-23 (1995), for resentencing.

2019This court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s section 2-1401 petition but agreed with the State that defendant’s sentence was void and remanded, based on the void sentence rule set forth in People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 112-13 (1995), for resentencing.

2023The court noted, however, that People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 19 , had abolished the void-sentence rule and, consequently, “that type of challenge is no longer valid.” Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 33 . ¶ 21 Thompson was decided after Walters and cited it with approval.

2020Since the supreme court abolished the void sentence rule in Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 19 , “that type of challenge is no longer valid.” Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 33 . ¶ 47 Although the Thompson defendant’s claim did not fit within one of the two recognized types of exceptions, he argued, as does defendant in the case at bar, that the supreme court recognizes “that a sentence that violates the constitution is void and subject to challenge at any time.” Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 40 .

2023People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004). ¶ 15 In People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶¶ 11-12 , our supreme court abolished the void sentence rule.

2019The majority claims that Gutierrez was premised on the void sentence rule because it cited People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19, 25 (2004).

2025Our supreme court abolished the void sentence rule in People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 , finding it to be “constitutionally unsound” because “the ‘inherent power’ view of jurisdiction, on which the rule was based, could not be reconciled with the constitutional grant of jurisdiction and was at odds with [supreme court] opinions *** rejecting that view of jurisdiction in the civil context.” People v. Price, 2016 IL 118613, ¶ 17 . ¶ 35 CONCLUSION ¶ 36 As this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment. ¶ 37 Motion gran

2025However, Castleberry eliminated the ability of appellate courts to sua sponte correct statutorily nonconforming sentences and eliminated a defendant’s ability to “rely on the void sentence rule to overcome forfeiture of a claimed sentencing error or challenge a statutorily nonconforming sentence in perpetuity.” People v. Price, 2016 IL 118613 , ¶ 17.

2016People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149, 156 , 619 N.E.2d 750, 754 (1993).

2016People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149, 156 , 619 N.E.2d 750, 754 (1993).

2018See People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498 , ¶ 13 (“Defendant asserts that his fees are void, and may therefore be challenged at any time [citation].

2017See People v. Reed , 2016 IL App (1st) 140498 , ¶ 13, 400 Ill.Dec. 341 , 48 N.E.3d 290 ("Defendant asserts that his fees are void, and may therefore be challenged at any time [citation].

2016Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶¶ 11-19 ; see also People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 29-30 . -2- 2016 IL App (2d) 141061 ¶5 The flipside of Castleberry is that without the void-sentence rule the trial court lacked the authority—i.e., the jurisdiction—to modify McDaniel’s sentence and correct the improper assessment of the $25 victims’ fine.

2016Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶¶ 11-19 ; see also People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 29-30 . -2- 2016 IL App (2d) 141061 ¶5 The flipside of Castleberry is that without the void-sentence rule the trial court lacked the authority—i.e., the jurisdiction—to modify McDaniel’s sentence and correct the improper assessment of the $25 victims’ fine.

2016See, e.g., Spears v. Spears, 52 Ill.

2016See, e.g., Spears v. Spears, 52 Ill.

2017Castleberry’s abolition of the void sentence rule, therefore, is of no consequence to the issue of whether the fines are void.” Wade, 2016 IL App (3d) 150417 , ¶ 12. ¶ 36 It is well settled that a “void order may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally.” People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19, 25 (2004).

2017Castleberry’s abolition of the void sentence rule, therefore, is of no consequence to the issue of whether the fines are void.” Wade, 2016 IL App (3d) 150417 , ¶ 12. ¶ 36 It is well settled that a “void order may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally.” People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19, 25 (2004).

2020Moreover, while the Act permits the filing of a successive petition, “[a] defendant must establish cause and prejudice as to each individual claim asserted in a successive postconviction petition to escape dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata and waiver. [Citations.]” People v. Smith, 2016 IL App (1st) 140887 , appeal denied, judgment vacated, abrogated by Price, 2016 IL 118613 .

2017Smith, 2016 IL App (1st) 140887, ¶ 27 (quoting Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 19 ).

2025Accordingly, defendant is not relying on the void sentence rule but a timely filed section 2-1401 petition. ¶ 16 “In the context of a section 2-1401 proceeding, relief ‘is predicated upon proof, by a preponderance of evidence, of a defense or claim that would have precluded entry of the judgment in the original action and diligence in both discovering the defense or claim and presenting the petition.’ ” People v. Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 42 (quoting People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 7-8 (2007)).

2021He argues that during this time, the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 , abolishing the void sentence rule, “which could have perhaps entitled [him] to a vacature of his 7-year robbery sentence.” ¶ 27 “A petitioner seeking to collaterally attack a judgment has no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel.” Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 35 (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)).

2025Accordingly, defendant is not relying on the void sentence rule but a timely filed section 2-1401 petition. ¶ 16 “In the context of a section 2-1401 proceeding, relief ‘is predicated upon proof, by a preponderance of evidence, of a defense or claim that would have precluded entry of the judgment in the original action and diligence in both discovering the defense or claim and presenting the petition.’ ” People v. Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 42 (quoting People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 7-8 (2007)).

2023People v. Vincent, 226 Ill.2d 1, 18 (2007). ¶ 15 Here, we agree with the State’s position that defendant does not allege that his sentence was void due to a lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, or due to a facially unconstitutional statute that was void ab initio, and therefore “defendant’s claim [was] not a type recognized by any of our precedents as exempt from the typical procedural bars of section 2-1401.” People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 34 (abolishing the void sentence rule).

2019See Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 11 . ¶9 Second, our supreme court’s holding in People v. Vara, 2018 IL 121823, ¶ 23 , decided after Wade, changed the landscape by holding our reviewing court lacks jurisdiction to even review clerical errors as our court did in Wade.

2018See Castleberry , 2015 IL 116916 , ¶ 11, 398 Ill.Dec. 22 , 43 N.E.3d 932 . ¶ 9 Second, our supreme court's holding in People v. Vara , 2018 IL 121823 , ¶ 23, 425 Ill.Dec. 498 , 115 N.E.3d 53 , decided after Wade , changed the landscape by holding our reviewing court lacks jurisdiction to even review clerical errors as our court did in Wade.

2017People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285, 302 (2011) (“challenge to an alleged void order is not subject to forfeiture”); Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d at 27 (“argument that an order or judgment is void is not subject to waiver”). ¶ 17 Castleberry abolished the void sentence rule because it was constitutionally unsound.

2016People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285, 302 (2011) (“challenge to an alleged void order is not subject to forfeiture”); Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d at 27 (“argument that an order or judgment is void is not subject to waiver”). ¶ 17 Castleberry abolished the void sentence rule because it was constitutionally unsound.

2017Indeed, as Stafford held, the fact that Castleberry did not create a new rule means that its holding “does apply retroactively.” (Emphasis in original.) Stafford, 2016 IL App (4th) 140309, ¶ 33 (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 ). ¶ 28 The Fourth District in Stafford went on to state: “Due to the abolition of the void sentence rule in Castleberry, the rule pre-Arna is reinstated: a sentence can only be challenged at any time as void if the court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction. [Citation.] Because defendant does not challenge the trial court’s personal or subject matter jurisdicti

2017Indeed, as Stafford held, the fact that Castleberry did not create a new rule means that its holding “does apply retroactively.” (Emphasis in original.) Stafford, 2016 IL App (4th) 140309, ¶ 33 (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 ). ¶ 28 The Fourth District in Stafford went on to state: “Due to the abolition of the void sentence rule in Castleberry, the rule pre-Arna is reinstated: a sentence can only be challenged at any time as void if the court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction. [Citation.] Because defendant does not challenge the trial court’s personal or subject matter jurisdicti

2020Ultimately, Castleberry concluded that because a “ ‘circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction, which need not look to the statute for its jurisdictional authority’ [citation] the void sentence rule is constitutionally unsound.” Id. at ¶ 19 (quoting Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d at 530 ). ¶ 25 Since Castleberry, our supreme court has twice reaffirmed that in Illinois a judgment will be 9 No. 1-19-0899 considered void only where it: (1) was entered by a court lacking personal or subject-matter jurisdiction; or (2) rests on a facially unconstitutional statute.

2019The supreme court agreed, stating: “Because ‘a circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction, which need not look to the statute for its jurisdictional authority’ (Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d at 530 ), the void sentence rule is constitutionally unsound.

2019As the appellate court correctly stated in People v. Hible, 2016 IL App (4th) 131096, ¶ 11 , “Castleberry does not change the outcome here.

2018Hible, 2016 IL App (4th) 131096, ¶¶ 10-11 ; People v. Daily, 2016 IL App (4th) 150588, ¶ 29 . ¶ 36 Therefore, nothing in Castleberry disturbs our holding in Smith that, “[a]bsent a court order imposing a specific fine, *** the clerk of a court, as a nonjudicial member of the court, has no power to levy fines.” (Emphasis added.) Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶ 63 .

2019Castleberry’s abolition of the void sentence rule, therefore, is of no consequence to the issue of whether the fines are void.”); People v. Warren, 2017 IL App (3d) 150085, ¶ 35 (McDade, J., dissenting) (“there is not an open question as to whether clerk-imposed fines are void.

2018Castleberry 's abolition of the void sentence rule, therefore, is of no consequence to the issue of whether the fines are void."); People v. Warren , 2017 IL App (3d) 150085 , ¶ 35, 416 Ill.Dec. 535 , 84 N.E.3d 517 (McDade, J., dissenting) ("there is not an open question as to whether clerk-imposed fines are void.

2019Thompson involved the void sentence rule, but it cited Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95, 103 (2002), for the boilerplate proposition that a void order may be attacked at any time or in any court.

2018Thompson involved the void sentence rule, but it cited Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education , 201 Ill. 2d 95 , 103, 267 Ill.Dec. 58 , 776 N.E.2d 195 (2002), for the boilerplate proposition that a void order may be attacked at any time or in any court.