Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Witherspoon

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 26, 2008No. 4-06-0226Published

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

  1. Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. United States v. Resendiz-PonceSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. People v. DavisIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Sullivan v. Town of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. DonovanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API