42 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ligongreen2 sentences2008See People v. Ligon, 365 Ill. 2008See People v. Ligon, 365 Ill. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2005App. 3d 555, 561 , 788 N.E.2d 1204 (2003) (agreeing that the minimum age and other ancillary elements are sufficiently intertwined with recidivism and distinct from the underlying elements of the underlying offense to fall under the recidivism exception recognized in Apprendi ); People v. Jones , 322 Ill. 2005App. 3d 555, 561 , 788 N.E.2d 1204 (2003) (agreeing that the minimum age and other ancillary elements are sufficiently intertwined with recidivism and distinct from the underlying elements of the underlying offense to fall under the recidivism exception recognized in Apprendi); People v. Jones, 322 Ill. | 2 | 5 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2020App. 3d 109, 127 (2006); see also People v. Brown, 229 Ill. 2d 374 , 385 n.5 (2008) (“we shall assume for the purposes of this appeal that the timing and sequence of defendant’s prior convictions are facts inherent in the convictions themselves and, as such, fall within the recidivism exception to the Apprendi rule”). ¶ 27 We have held that recidivism statutes do not violate Shepard. 2020App. 3d 109, 127 (2006); see also People v. Brown, 229 Ill. 2d 374 , 385 n.5 (2008) (“we shall assume for the purposes of this appeal that the timing and sequence of defendant’s prior convictions are facts inherent in the convictions themselves and, as such, fall within the recidivism exception to the Apprendi rule”). ¶ 27 We have held that recidivism statutes do not violate Shepard. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Whitegreen2 sentences2020People v. White, 407 Ill. 2020People v. White, 407 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See People v. Watson, 322 Ill.App.3d 164, 167 , 255 Ill.Dec. 596 , 749 N.E.2d 1078 (2001) (observing with regard to the recidivism exception in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that "the rights of fair notice, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a jury trial inherent in due process have already been met with regard to [prior] convictions"); see also Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249 , 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1227 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311, 329-30 (1999). 2007See People v. Watson, 322 Ill.App.3d 164, 167 , 255 Ill.Dec. 596 , 749 N.E.2d 1078 (2001) (observing with regard to the recidivism exception in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that "the rights of fair notice, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a jury trial inherent in due process have already been met with regard to [prior] convictions"); see also Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249 , 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1227 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311, 329-30 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., People v. Pickens, 323 Ill. 2006See, e.g., People v. Pick-ens, 323 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lundygreen2 sentences2005See, e.g. , People v. Lundy , 334 Ill. 2005See, e.g., People v. Lundy, 334 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2008Ed. 2d at 454 , 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 , where the Court, discussing the recidivism exception to the jury trial requirement set forth in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 140 L. 2008Ed. 2d at 454 , 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 , where the Court, discussing the recidivism exception to the jury trial requirement set forth in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 140 L. | 1 | 16 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences2007See People v. Watson, 322 Ill.App.3d 164, 167 , 255 Ill.Dec. 596 , 749 N.E.2d 1078 (2001) (observing with regard to the recidivism exception in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that "the rights of fair notice, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a jury trial inherent in due process have already been met with regard to [prior] convictions"); see also Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249 , 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1227 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311, 329-30 (1999). 2007See People v. Watson, 322 Ill.App.3d 164, 167 , 255 Ill.Dec. 596 , 749 N.E.2d 1078 (2001) (observing with regard to the recidivism exception in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that "the rights of fair notice, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a jury trial inherent in due process have already been met with regard to [prior] convictions"); see also Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249 , 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1227 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311, 329-30 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pulgargreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., People v. Pulgar, 323 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lathon
green
2 sentences2003The recidivism exception in Apprendi was recognized in Illinois in People v. Lathon, 317 Ill.App.3d 573 , 251 Ill.Dec. 296 , 740 N.E.2d 377 (2000). 2003The recidivism exception in Apprendi was recognized in Illinois in People v. Lathon, 317 Ill.App.3d 573 , 251 Ill.Dec. 296 , 740 N.E.2d 377 (2000). | 14 | 2001–2003 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2005We have additionally upheld the “the minimum age and other ancillary elements of section 5-5-3(c)(8), finding that they are sufficiently intertwined with recidivism and distinct from the elements of the underlying offense to fall under the recidivism exception recognized in Apprendi .” Smith , 338 Ill. 2005App. 3d 555, 561 , 788 N.E.2d 1204 (2003) (agreeing that the minimum age and other ancillary elements are sufficiently intertwined with recidivism and distinct from the underlying elements of the underlying offense to fall under the recidivism exception recognized in Apprendi); People v. Jones, 322 Ill. | 6 | 2003–2005 |
People v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2005App. 3d 281, 289 , 760 N.E.2d 511 (2001) (holding that the recidivism exception recognized in Apprendi was applicable because the defendant's prior convictions were not an essential element of the underlying criminal offense and the prior convictions did not relate to the commission of the underlying offense ). 2005App. 3d 281, 289 , 760 N.E.2d 511 (2001) (holding that the recidivism exception recognized in Apprendi was applicable because the defendant’s prior convictions were not an essential element of the underlying criminal offense and the prior convictions did not relate to the commission of the underlying offense). | 3 | 2003–2005 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2008Ed. 2d at 454 , 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 , where the Court, discussing the recidivism exception to the jury trial requirement set forth in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 140 L. 2008Ed. 2d at 454 , 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 , where the Court, discussing the recidivism exception to the jury trial requirement set forth in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 140 L. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Tek Ngo
green
2 sentences2008The Seventh Circuit found the Shepard plurality “suggest [ed] that the recidivism exception exempts only those findings traceable to a prior judicial record of ‘conclusive significance.’ ” Ngo, 406 F.3d at 842 . 2008The Seventh Circuit found the Shepard plurality "suggest[ed] that the recidivism exception exempts only those findings traceable to a prior judicial record of 'conclusive significance.'" Ngo, 406 F.3d at 842 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2000Our decision is in accordance with the principle of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 25 L. 2000Our decision is in accordance with the principle of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 25 L. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
People v. DiPace
green
2 sentences2007Further support for our conclusion that count II is not a new and additional charge can be found in People v. DiPace, 354 Ill.App.3d 104 , 288 Ill.Dec. 839 , 818 N.E.2d 774 (2004). 2007Further support for our conclusion that count II is not a new and additional charge can be found in People v. DiPace, 354 Ill.App.3d 104 , 288 Ill.Dec. 839 , 818 N.E.2d 774 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. DiPace
green
1 sentence2007Further support for our conclusion that count II is not a new and additional charge can be found in People v. DiPace, 354 Ill.App.3d 104 , 288 Ill.Dec. 839 , 818 N.E.2d 774 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Askew
green
1 sentence2003Askew, 341 Ill. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.