People v. Christian

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Tate

    2020 Ill. App. 171442 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    This court, however, has repeatedly found that Bingham controls and precludes reviewing courts from addressing a defendant's facial or as applied constitutional challenges to SORA on direct appeal from a sex offense where, as here, the registration requirement is not included in the judgment and where the appeal has no direct relation to the defendant's obligation or failure to register as a sex offender in compliance with SORA's mandates. Compare People v. Wells, 2019 IL App (1st) 163247, ¶ 51 (dismissing the defendant's due process and facial challenges to SORA where the Act's registration requirement was a collateral consequence of his aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction and his constitutional challenges were thus beyond the permissible scope of appellate review); People v. Christian, 2019 IL App (1st) 153155, ¶ 17 (dismissing the defendant's due process and proportionate penalties challenges to SORA that were raised on direct appeal from his aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction because the sex offender registration requirement was not imposed upon him by the trial court, and as a result, his constitutional challenges exceeded our scope of power to grant relief under Supreme Court Rule 615(b)); People v. McArthur, 2019 IL App (1st) 150626-B, ¶ 46 (dismissing the defendant's facial and as applied constitutional challenges to SORA that he raised on direct appeal from his aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction where the trial court did not impose upon the defendant the obligation to register as a sex offender and where the appeal had no direct relation to his obligation or failure to register); People v. Denis, 2019 IL App (1st) 151892, ¶ 97 (finding that we lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's constitutional challenges to SORA on direct appeal from his criminal sexual

  2. People v. Booker

    2019 Ill. App. 162649 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    was contesting the constitutionality of SORA following his conviction for theft. Here, in contrast, defendant is raising a constitutional challenge to SORA on appeal from his conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault. This court, however, has repeatedly found that Bingham controls and precludes reviewing courts from addressing a defendant's constitutional challenge to SORA on direct appeal from a sex offense where, as here, the registration requirement is not included in the judgment and where the appeal has no direct relation to the defendant's obligation or failure to register as a sex offender in compliance with SORA's mandates. Compare People v. Christian, 2019 IL App (1st) 153155, ¶ 17 (dismissing the defendant's due process and proportionate penalties challenges to SORA that were raised on direct appeal from his aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction because the sex offender registration requirement was not imposed upon him by the trial court, and as a result, his constitutional challenges exceeded our scope of power to grant relief under Supreme Court Rule 615(b)); People v. McArthur, 2019 IL App (1st) 150626-B, ¶ 46 (dismissing the defendant's constitutional challenges to SORA that he raised on direct appeal from his aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction where the trial court did not impose upon the defendant the obligation to register as a sex offender and where the appeal had no direct relation to his obligation or failure to register); People v. Denis, 2019 IL App (1st) 151892, ¶ 97 (finding that we lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's constitutional challenges to SORA on direct appeal from his criminal sexual abuse and aggravated c

  3. People v. Dudasik

    2019 Ill. App. 163138 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 18 We have thus held that Bingham applies when, as here, the registration or other SORA requirements arose solely as collateral consequences of the convictions from which the defendant was currently appealing, irrespective of the defendant's criminal history. People v. Christian, 2019 IL App (1st) 153155, ¶¶ 1, 17 (aggravated criminal sexual abuse); McArthur, 2019 IL App (1st) 150626-B, ¶¶ 1, 45 (same); People v. Denis, 2018 IL App (1st) 151892, ¶ 97 (criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse). We fully agree with those cases and adhere to them here.

  4. People v. Wells

    2019 Ill. App. 163247 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 12 times

    We disagree with defendant's argument. Several cases from the First District have found Bingham controls under the same circumstances presented here. See People v. Christian , 2019 IL App (1st) 153155, ¶¶ 9-17, ––– Ill.Dec. ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– (on direct appeal from his conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, the court dismissed the defendant's arguments that SORA violated his substantive and procedural due process rights and was punitive and violated the proportionate penalties); People v. McArthur , 2019 IL App (1st) 150626-B, ¶¶ 42-46, ––– Ill.Dec. ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– (on direct appeal from his conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, the court dismissed the defendant's facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to SORA); Denis , 2018 IL App (1st) 151892, ¶¶ 95, 426 Ill.Dec. 263, 115 N.E.3d 1185-100 (on direct appeal from his convictions of criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse, the court found no jurisdiction to review the defendant's challenges to SORA on procedural and substantive due process grounds). As the Bingham court observed, defendant may obtain relief from his obligation to register and comply with SORA by securing rever

  5. People v. Sledge

    2019 Ill. App. 3d 170052 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    fines subject to the presentence monetary credit. See People v. Christian, 2019 IL App (1st) 153155, ¶ 25; People v. Gomez, 2018 IL App (1st) 150605, ¶¶ 45-46.¶ 66 The State requests that we direct the circuit court of Peoria County to remove the asterisk next to the challenged assessments on its standard form for imposing monetary assessments to eliminate future appeals raising the same issue.

  6. People v. Williams

    2019 Ill. App. 163005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 23 This court has held that the $1,000 controlled substance assessment and $15 State Police operations assessment are fines subject to an offset under section 110-14(a). People v. Brown, 388 Ill. App. 3d 104, 115 (2009) (finding that the $1,000 controlled substance assessment is a fine subject to an offset under section 110-14(a)); People v. Christian, 2019 IL App (1st) 153155, ¶ 25 (finding the $15 State Police operations assessment is a fine subject to an offset under section 110-14(a)). The $5 electronic citation fee also does not apply to felonies and is, therefore, inapplicable to defendant's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.