ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Supreme Court
People v. Blair, 2013 IL 114122
Caption in Supreme THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. CONNIE
Court: S. BLAIR, Appellee.
Docket No. 114122
Filed March 21, 2013
Held Although the mandatory 15-year sentence enhancement for armed
(Note: This syllabus robbery with a firearm was judicially determined in 2007 to violate the
constitutes no part of proportionality clause of the Illinois Constitution by permitting a sentence
the opinion of the court more severe than that for the identical offense of armed violence based
but has been prepared on robbery with a category I or II weapon, that enhancement was not
by the Reporter of thereby rendered void ab initio, but merely unenforceable, and the
Decisions for the legislature revived the enhancement later that same year by a statutory
convenience of the amendment providing that armed violence could no longer be predicated
reader.) on robbery, thus making the two offenses no longer subject to
proportionality review because they were no longer identical.
Decision Under Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District; heard in that
Review court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry County, the Hon. Charles
H. Stengel, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Appellate court judgment reversed.
Circuit court judgment affirmed.
Counsel on Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Terence M. Patton,
Appeal State’s Attorney, of Cambridge (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General,
and Michael M. Glick and Garson S. Fischer, Assistant Attorneys
General, of Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, Stephen E. Norris and Jennifer
Camden, of the Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of
Mt. Vernon, of counsel), for the People.
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Peter A. Carusona, Deputy
Defender, and Santiago A. Durango, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the
Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Ottawa, for appellee.
Justices JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier,
and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 At issue in this appeal is whether Public Act 95-688 (eff. Oct. 23, 2007), which amended
the armed violence statute, revived the sentencing enhancement in the armed robbery statute
that this court held unconstitutional in People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (2007).
¶2 For the reasons stated below, we hold that Public Act 95-688 revived the armed robbery
sentencing enhancement. We therefore reverse the judgment of the appellate court (2012 IL
App (3d) 100743-U), and affirm the judgment of the trial court which applied the
enhancement to defendant’s sentence.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant Connie Blair was convicted by a Henry County jury of armed robbery while
armed with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2008)), in connection with an incident
in April 2009. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 23 years’ imprisonment
which, over defendant’s objection, included a 15-year enhancement pursuant to section 18-
2(b) of the armed robbery statute. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2008). Defendant appealed.
¶5 The appellate court held that the trial court erred by applying the 15-year enhancement.
2012 IL App (3d) 100743-U, ¶ 1. The appellate court rejected the State’s argument that
Public Act 95-688 could revive the sentencing enhancement in the armed robbery statute by
amending the armed violence statute. Id. ¶¶ 6-12 (discussing People v. Manuel, 94 Ill. 2d 242
(1983)). According to the appellate court, when Hauschild held the armed robbery sentencing
-2-
enhancement in section 18-2(b) unconstitutional under the proportionate penalties clause, the
enhancement was rendered void ab initio, and it “remains unavailable at sentencing until the
legislature takes some action on section 18-2(b).” Id. ¶ 12. The appellate court reversed and
remanded for resentencing in accordance with the armed robbery statute as it existed prior
to the adoption of the sentencing enhancement. Id. ¶ 13. Under the appellate court judgment,
on remand, defendant would be subject to a sentence of 6 to 30 years’ imprisonment, rather
than an enhanced sentence of 21 to 45 years’ imprisonment. Compare 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b)
(West 1998), and 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3) (West 1998), with 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West
2008).
¶6 We allowed the State’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).
¶7 ANALYSIS
¶8 I
¶9 Whether Public Act 95-688 revived the sentencing enhancement for armed robbery held
unconstitutional in Hauschild presents an issue of law, which we review de novo. People v.
Clemons, 2012 IL 107821, ¶ 8. An understanding of this issue, as well as the parties’
arguments, requires that we first review our proportionate penalties jurisprudence as it relates
to the two statutes at issue here—the armed robbery statute and the armed violence statute.
¶ 10 II
¶ 11 In People v. Lewis, 175 Ill. 2d 412 (1996), we considered whether the penalties for armed
violence predicated on robbery committed with a category I weapon (a handgun) (720 ILCS
5/33A-1 (West 1994)) and armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2 (West 1994)) are proportionate
penalties under our state constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11). At that time, armed
robbery, a Class X felony, was punishable by a term of imprisonment of 6 to 30 years. 720
ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 1994); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3) (West 1994). Armed violence,
predicated on robbery with a category I weapon, was also a Class X felony, but was
punishable by a term of imprisonment of 15 to 30 years. 720 ILCS 5/33A-2, 33A-3 (West
1994). Applying the identical elements test for proportionality review, we held that the
penalty for armed violence predicated on robbery committed with a category I weapon
violated the proportionate penalties clause. Lewis, 175 Ill. 2d at 418. Accordingly, the
“State’s Attorney had no authority to charge that offense.” Id. at 423.
¶ 12 Four years after Lewis, the General Assembly enacted Public Act 91-404, which
contained the so-called “15/20/25-to-life” sentencing enhancements. Pub. Act 91-404 (eff.
Jan. 1, 2000). The new sentencing scheme mandated that 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years to
natural life must be added to the Class X sentence for armed robbery (and several other
offenses) where the offender was, respectively, armed with a firearm, discharged a firearm,
or discharged a firearm causing great bodily harm or death. 720 ILCS 5/18-2 (West 2000).
As a result of these mandatory add ons, the sentence for armed robbery while armed with a
firearm became greater than the sentence for armed violence based on robbery with a
category I or II weapon. Compare 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2000) (armed robbery
sentences), with 720 ILCS 5/33A-3 (West 2000) (armed violence sentences).
-3-
¶ 13 Public Act 91-404 also amended the armed violence statute in two respects: (1) armed
robbery, and certain other felonies, were expressly excluded as predicate offenses for armed
violence (720 ILCS 5/33A-2 (West 2000)); and (2) the sentence for armed violence
committed with a firearm was no longer dependent solely on the category into which the
firearm belonged, but was also dependent on whether the offender discharged the firearm
(720 ILCS 5/33A-2, 33A-3(b-5), (b-10) (West 2000)).
¶ 14 We considered the constitutionality of the enhanced penalties for armed robbery in
People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392 (2002). Utilizing the cross-comparison approach for
proportionality review, we determined that armed robbery while in possession of a firearm,
and armed violence predicated on aggravated robbery, shared an identical statutory purpose,
but that the less serious offense—armed robbery—was punished more severely. Id. at 396-
97. Thus, we held the 15-year enhancement for armed robbery while in possession of a
firearm violated the proportionate penalties clause and was “unenforceable.” Id. at 397.
¶ 15 A few years later, in People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 519 (2005), we abandoned cross-
comparison proportionate penalties analysis, and expressly overruled “[t]hose cases that used
such an analysis to invalidate a penalty.” Walden was no longer good law.
¶ 16 Following Sharpe, the next opportunity to consider the constitutionality of the sentencing
enhancement for armed robbery presented itself in Hauschild. There, the defendant was
convicted of several offenses, including armed robbery while armed with a firearm. At the
time of the offenses, the 15/20/25-to-life amendments were in effect. By the time of
sentencing, however, Walden had been decided. And while the defendant’s case was pending
on direct appeal, Sharpe was decided. At issue in Hauschild was whether defendant was
subject to the 15-year add-on penalty for his armed robbery conviction and, if so, whether
that sentence was disproportionate to the sentence for armed violence based on robbery with
a category I or II weapon.
¶ 17 We first considered the effect of our holding in Sharpe, concluding that:
“Sharpe effectively ‘revived’ the constitutionality of the 15-year add-on penalty for
armed robbery while armed with a firearm. [Citation.] Put another way, because
cross-comparison proportionate penalties review was no longer part of our
jurisprudence following Sharpe, *** Walden *** no longer supported a finding that
the 15-year sentencing enhancement for armed robbery while armed with a firearm
*** violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.”
Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 76-77.
We next concluded that Sharpe, which was of constitutional dimension, applied retroactively
to the defendant’s case (id. at 78), and that the defendant was thus subject to the 15-year add
on (id. at 81).
¶ 18 Before examining the defendant’s claim that the enhanced sentence for armed robbery
violated the proportionate penalties clause when compared to the sentence for armed
violence based on robbery with a category I or II weapon, we considered the status of the
armed violence statute in light of our decision in Lewis. The appellate court in Hauschild’s
case believed that the armed violence statute “ ‘ceased to exist’ ” after Lewis, and that armed
violence could not be used as a basis to conduct proportionality review. Id. at 84 (quoting
-4-
People v. Hauschild, 364 Ill. App. 3d 202, 217 (2006)). We rejected the appellate court’s
conclusion:
“While Lewis, 175 Ill. 2d at 423, found the sentencing scheme for armed violence
predicated on armed robbery to be unconstitutional as penalizing the same conduct
more severely than did the armed robbery statute, and therefore unavailable to
prosecutors, that prohibition was eradicated by the legislature’s enactment of Public
Act 91-404. In other words, Public Act 91-404 ‘revived’ the offense of armed
violence predicated on robbery when it amended the sentence for certain armed
robberies to add the 15/20/25-to-life provisions, creating more severe penalties for
those offenses than for armed violence predicated on robbery.” Hauschild, 226 Ill.
2d at 84.
We concluded that our holding in Lewis did not preclude “comparison of the ‘revived’ armed
violence offense to armed robbery while armed with a firearm for purposes of proportionality
review.” Id. at 85.
¶ 19 In Hauschild, we also rejected the State’s argument that, because Public Act 91-404
excluded armed robbery as a predicate offense for armed violence, a comparison between the
two offenses under the identical elements test for proportionality was inappropriate. Id. We
observed that Public Act 91-404 had not excluded robbery as a predicate offense for armed
violence, and because every charge of armed violence predicated on robbery would also be
an armed robbery, a comparison between armed robbery and armed violence under our
identical elements test was permissible. Id.
¶ 20 We ultimately held, in Hauschild, that the sentence applicable to the defendant for armed
robbery while armed with a firearm, which included a 15-year mandatory enhancement (720
ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2000)), violated the proportionate penalties clause because that
sentence is more severe than the sentence for the identical offense of armed violence based
on robbery with a category I or II weapon (720 ILCS 5/33A-3(a) (West 2000)). Hauschild,
226 Ill. 2d at 86-87. Thus, the 15-year enhancement for armed robbery that was adopted in
Public Act 91-404, held unconstitutional in Walden, and whose constitutionality was revived
in Sharpe, was once more unconstitutional.
¶ 21 Less than five months after our decision in Hauschild, the General Assembly enacted
Public Act 95-688 (eff. Oct. 23, 2007), the subject of the instant appeal. Public Act 95-688
did not amend the armed robbery statute that Hauschild held unconstitutional. Rather, Public
Act 95-688 amended the armed violence statute so that robbery cannot serve as a predicate
offense for armed violence. As a result of this amendment, armed violence and armed
robbery no longer have identical elements for purposes of proportionality review, precluding
the type of proportionate penalties challenge mounted in Hauschild. In short, Public Act 95-
688 remedied the disproportionality that existed between the armed violence and armed
robbery statutes.
¶ 22 In Clemons, decided after the enactment of Public Act 95-688, we declined the State’s
invitation to overrule Hauschild or abandon the identical elements test. Clemons, 2012 IL
107821, ¶¶ 19, 26, 53. In the present case, we decide the issue left unanswered in Clemons:
whether, following the legislature’s enactment of Public Act 95-688, the State can obtain an
-5-
enhanced sentence for armed robbery. Id. ¶¶ 51-52. We note that our appellate court has not
ruled consistently on this issue. Compare People v. Brown, 2012 IL App (5th) 100452, and
People v. Malone, 2012 IL App (1st) 110517 (holding that Public Act 95-688 revived the
armed robbery sentencing enhancement), with People v. Gillespie, 2012 IL App (4th)
110151, and People v. McFadden, 2012 IL App (1st) 102939 (holding that Public Act 95-688
did not revive the armed robbery sentencing enhancement).
¶ 23 With this background, we consider the parties’ arguments.
¶ 24 III
¶ 25 The State urges us to reverse the appellate court judgment and hold that Public Act 95-
688 revived the sentencing enhancement in the armed robbery statute. Relying on Hauschild,
the State maintains that just as Public Act 91-404 revived the offense of armed violence
based on robbery by amending the armed robbery statute, Public Act 95-688 revived the
sentencing enhancement for armed robbery by amending the armed violence statute. The
State disputes that, under the void ab initio doctrine, the legislature could only revive the
armed robbery sentencing enhancement by amending and/or reenacting that statute. The State
explains that unlike other constitutional violations, an identical elements proportionality
violation arises from the relationship between two statutes. Therefore, at least two ways exist
to remedy the constitutional violation: amend the challenged statute or amend the
comparison statute. Here, the legislature opted to amend the comparison statute. The State
also posits that amendment of the armed robbery statute was unnecessary because Hauschild
simply rendered the statute unenforceable until the constitutional infirmity was remedied.
¶ 26 Defendant argues that although Public Act 95-688 may have remedied the constitutional
infirmity in the armed robbery statute identified in Hauschild, Public Act 95-688 did not
revive the sentencing enhancement in that statute. Defendant contends that once Hauschild
declared the armed robbery sentencing enhancement unconstitutional the statute was void
ab initio, and “the enhancement never existed.” Defendant maintains that unless and until
the legislature reenacts the sentencing enhancement in the armed robbery statute, it remains
a nullity.
¶ 27 We agree with the State. Public Act 95-688 revived the sentencing enhancement for
armed robbery.
¶ 28 When a statute is held facially unconstitutional, i.e., unconstitutional in all its
applications (see In re Rodney H., 223 Ill. 2d 510, 521 (2006)), the statute is said to be void
ab initio. Lucien v. Briley, 213 Ill. 2d 340, 344-45 (2004); Hill v. Cowan, 202 Ill. 2d 151, 156
(2002); see also People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 390 (1990) (“ ‘[w]hen a statute is held
unconstitutional in its entirety, it is void ab initio’ ” (quoting Manuel, 94 Ill. 2d at 244-45));
Perlstein v. Wolk, 218 Ill. 2d 448, 455 (2006) (an unconstitutional statute is void “from the
beginning”). The void ab initio doctrine is based on the theory that:
“ ‘An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed.’ ” Id. at 454 (quoting Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886)).
-6-
¶ 29 Contrary to defendant’s argument, the void ab initio doctrine does not mean that a statute
held unconstitutional “never existed.” As we recognized in Perlstein, “ ‘[t]he actual existence
of a statute,’ ” prior to a determination that the statute is unconstitutional, “ ‘is an operative
fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be
erased by a new judicial declaration.’ ” Perlstein, 218 Ill. 2d at 461 (quoting Chicot County
Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 374 (1940)). Moreover, to construe
the void ab initio doctrine as rendering a statute nonexistent is tantamount to saying that this
court may repeal a statute. See Certain Taxpayers v. Sheahan, 45 Ill. 2d 75, 81 (1970)
(“effect of repeal is to obliterate the statute repealed as completely as though it had never
been passed as a law and never existed”). Such a result, however, would contravene our
separation of powers clause. Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, § 1.
¶ 30 The power to enact laws, and the concomitant power to repeal those laws, reside in the
General Assembly. Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill. 2d 318, 334-35 (2006); Hilberg
v. Industrial Comm’n, 380 Ill. 102, 106 (1942); 34 Ill. L. and Prac. Statutes §§ 3, 35 (2001).
Our function is to interpret those laws, determining and giving effect to the legislature’s
intent. Allegis Realty Investors, 223 Ill. 2d at 334-35; Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.
2d 367, 378 (1997); Droste v. Kerner, 34 Ill. 2d 495, 504 (1966); see also Perlstein, 218 Ill.
2d at 471 (“ ‘courts have no real power to repeal or abolish a statute’ ” (quoting Laurence H.
Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 3-3, at 28 (2d ed. 1988)); Henrich v. Libertyville High
School, 186 Ill. 2d 381, 394 (1998) (“Courts have no legislative powers; courts may not enact
or amend statutes.”). Although we are obligated to declare an unconstitutional statute invalid
and void (Best, 179 Ill. 2d at 378; Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d at 398), such a declaration by this court
cannot, within the strictures of the separation of powers clause, repeal or otherwise render
the statute nonexistent. Accordingly, when we declare a statute unconstitutional and void ab
initio, we mean only that the statute was constitutionally infirm from the moment of its
enactment and is, therefore, unenforceable. As a consequence, we will give no effect to the
unconstitutional statute and instead apply the prior law to the parties before us. See, e.g.,
Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 88-89 (remanding for resentencing under statute as it existed prior
to the adoption of the unconstitutional amendment); accord Clemons, 2012 IL 107821, ¶ 60.
See also Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d at 390 (“The effect of enacting an unconstitutional amendment
to a statute is to leave the law in force as it was before the adoption of the amendment.”). In
short, a statute declared unconstitutional by this court “ ‘continues to remain on the statute
books’ ” (Perlstein, 218 Ill. 2d at 471 (quoting Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional
Law § 3-3, at 28 (2d ed. 1988)), and unless and until the constitutional violation is remedied,
our decision stands as an impediment to the operation and enforcement of the statute.
¶ 31 Ordinarily, when this court declares a statute unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, the
only way in which the legislature may remedy the statute’s infirmity is by amending or
reenacting that statute. For example, when a statute is held unconstitutional because it was
adopted in violation of the single subject rule, the legislature may revive the statute by
reenacting the same provision, but in a manner that does not offend the single subject rule.
People v. Ramsey, 192 Ill. 2d 154, 157 (2000); see also Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial
Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 250 (2010) (legislature was free to reenact provisions of Public Act
94-677 deemed invalid solely on severability grounds). When a statute is found to violate the
-7-
proportionate penalties clause under the identical elements test, however, amendment or
reenactment of that statute is not the legislature’s only recourse. This is so because of the
unique nature of an identical elements proportionality violation.
¶ 32 A proportionate penalties violation, under the identical elements test, occurs when “two
offenses have identical elements but disparate sentences.” Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 85; see
also Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d at 503-05 (discussing the origin of identical elements proportionality
review). Thus, unlike other constitutional violations which are based on the manner in which
a single statute operates, an identical elements proportionality violation arises out of the
relationship between two statutes—the challenged statute, and the comparison statute with
which the challenged statute is out of proportion. E.g., People v. Christy, 139 Ill. 2d 172, 177
(1990) (comparing armed violence predicated on kidnapping with a category I weapon and
aggravated kidnapping); Lewis, 175 Ill. 2d at 414 (comparing armed violence predicated on
robbery committed with a category I weapon and armed robbery); Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at
85-86 (comparing armed robbery while armed with a firearm and armed violence based on
robbery with a category I or II weapon). Although only the statute with the greater penalty
will be found to violate the proportionate penalties clause (Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d at 504), that
violation is entirely dependent upon the existence of the comparison statute, i.e., the statute
with identical elements but a lesser penalty. In light of this peculiar feature of an identical
elements proportionality violation, the legislature has more options available to it should it
wish to remedy the constitutional violation and revive the statute. The legislature may amend
the challenged statute held unconstitutional, amend the comparison statute, or amend both
statutes.
¶ 33 Defendant argues, however, that under our decision in Manuel, the legislature may not
revive an unconstitutional statute through amendment of a different statute. Manuel does not
stand for such a broad proposition of law. In Manuel, we rejected the State’s argument that
an amendment to certain sections of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat.
1979, ch. 56½, ¶ 1401(e), (f)) could revive a different section of that act which “this court
subsequently holds unconstitutional.” (Emphasis added.) Manuel, 94 Ill. 2d at 244. In other
words, the legislature could not have intended revival of a statute which had not yet been
declared unconstitutional. See Malone, 2012 IL App (1st) 110517, ¶ 88. In contrast to the
sequence of events in Manuel, Public Act 95-688 was enacted after, not before, this court
declared the armed robbery sentencing enhancement unconstitutional.
¶ 34 To the extent that Manuel could be read as holding that revival of a statute cannot be
effected through amendment of a different statute, Hauschild effectively overruled Manuel.
As discussed above, Hauschild considered the effect of Public Act 91-404 on the offense of
armed violence predicated on robbery, which Lewis held violated the proportionate penalties
clause when compared to armed robbery. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 84. Hauschild held that
Public Act 91-404 revived that armed violence offense “when it amended the sentence for
certain armed robberies.” Id. Thus, Hauschild recognized that a statute held unconstitutional
under the identical elements test for proportionality could be revived through amendment of
the comparison statute. Although defendant here notes that Public Act 91-404 also amended
the armed violence statute, that fact was immaterial to our analysis in Hauschild and was not
a basis of our holding in that case. Moreover, the amendments made to the armed violence
-8-
statute in Public Act 91-404 did not help cure the proportionality violation identified in
Lewis.
¶ 35 The issue we address in the present case is analogous to the issue addressed in Hauschild,
and we necessarily reach a similar result. Just as Public Act 91-404 revived the offense of
armed violence based on robbery by amending the armed robbery statute, we now hold that
Public Act 95-688 revived the sentencing enhancement in the armed robbery statute by
amending the armed violence statute. In this case, as in Hauschild, the legislature revived the
unconstitutional statute by curing the proportionality violation through amendment of the
comparison statute. Appellate court cases which hold to the contrary are overruled.
¶ 36 We recognize that the legislature could have signaled its intent to revive the armed
robbery sentencing enhancement by amending the armed violence statute and simultaneously
reenacting the armed robbery sentencing provision. As already discussed, however,
reenactment of the armed robbery sentencing provision was not required as a matter of law
because Hauschild did not render the sentencing enhancement nonexistent; it rendered the
sentencing enhancement unenforceable.
¶ 37 Furthermore, the legislature’s intent to revive the sentencing enhancement is plain
enough, even in the absence of reenactment of that provision. As our case law illustrates, this
court has had an ongoing dialogue with the legislature concerning the constitutionality of
various statutes increasing the penalties for certain felonies when the offender possesses or
uses a firearm during the commission of the offense. See Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d at 490-523
(discussing the history of our proportionate penalties clause jurisprudence). Public Act 95-
688 was simply the latest reaction to a declaration from this court concerning the
constitutionality of one of these statutes. Enacted within a few months of Hauschild, Public
Act 95-688 not only remedied the proportionate penalties violation identified in Hauschild,
it did so in a manner that tracked our analysis in Hauschild. We indicated in Hauschild that
although the legislature had previously excluded armed robbery as a predicate felony for
armed violence, it had not excluded robbery, and, therefore, we could proceed with an
identical elements analysis. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 85. Public Act 95-688 amended the
armed violence statute so that robbery can no longer serve as a predicate offense for armed
violence.
¶ 38 Although discerning legislative intent can sometimes be a “thorny task” (O’Casek v.
Children’s Home & Aid Society of Illinois, 229 Ill. 2d 421, 441 (2008)), the legislature’s
intent when it enacted Public Act 95-688 is clear. To the extent any residual doubt exists, it
is erased through examination of the legislative history of Public Act 95-688. See 95th Ill.
Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, July 26, 2007, at 8 (statements of Senator Cullerton)
(stating that the bill underlying Public Act 95-688 addresses an Illinois Supreme Court
decision that held the legislature violated the proportionate penalties clause and that the bill
“corrects that”).
¶ 39 CONCLUSION
¶ 40 For the reasons stated, the trial court properly sentenced defendant to an enhanced term
pursuant to section 18-2(b) of the armed robbery statute. Accordingly, we reverse the
-9-
judgment of the appellate court, and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 41 Appellate court judgment reversed.
¶ 42 Circuit court judgment affirmed.
-10-