Supreme Court Summaries

Opinions filed May 22, 2008

No. 105415     Holly v. Montes

      Original action for mandamus.

      JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with

opinion.

      Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Freeman, Fitzgerald, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.

      Justice Burke took no part in the decision.

      This Cook County offender entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree murder in connection with a 1996 homicide. At the plea hearing, the judge advised him that a statutorily required term of mandatory supervised release (formerly known as parole) would be part of the sentence.

      In 2007, electronic home confinement was imposed as part of the mandatory supervised release. Holly responded by filing an original action for mandamus in the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking to have the electronic home confinement eliminated. Before oral arguments were heard, the electronic home confinement did come to an end, and the issue could be considered moot, but the court addressed it anyway as a matter of public interest.

      Statute provides that mandatory supervised release is part of every sentence that is not for death or natural life. Statute also gives correction authorities wide discretion to fashion the terms of mandatory supervised release. Within that framework, electronic home confinement is a permissible option. Mandamus is not available to this offender, since such a remedy directs a public official to perform his duty where that duty is not a matter of discretion. Mandamus was denied.

      The supreme court rejected Holly’s due process claim that electronic home confinement caused him to be confined after his sentence was completed. The court noted that electronic home confinement, as part of mandatory supervised release, is part of the sentence. The court also rejected the claim that the offender was denied the benefit of his plea bargain because he never received from the judge a specific admonishment about electronic home confinement when he entered into the plea agreement. However, he had been admonished about mandatory supervised release. In this decision, the supreme court held that this was sufficient because mandatory supervised release covers a range of options for correction authorities.