People v. Witherspoon
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
PRESIDING JUSTICE APPLETON,
specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that the sentences on counts VIII and IX should run concurrently. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the State proved count VI, a second offense of attempt (aggravated criminal sexual assault).
Defendant does not invoke the one-act, one-crime doctrine in his brief. He does not argue that the State “carved [more than one offense] from the same physical act.” King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566, 363 N.E.2d at 844. Nor does he argue that “with regard to multiple acts,” he…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- United States v. Resendiz-PonceSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- People v. DavisIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
- Sullivan v. Town of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
- Commonwealth v. DonovanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.