Case Title: People v. Brown

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89226

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Docket No. 89226-Agenda 4-May 2002.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. 
 								CORTEZ BROWN, Appellant.
	In the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Cortez Brown,
was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal,
this court affirmed defendant's conviction, but vacated his death
sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. People v.
Brown, 169 Ill. 2d 132, 153, 164 (1996). Following the new
sentencing hearing, a jury found defendant eligible for the death
penalty and further determined that there were no mitigating
circumstances sufficient to preclude the imposition of that
sentence. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to
death. That sentence has been stayed pending direct review by this
court. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(b); 134 Ill. 2d Rs. 603, 609(a).
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss defendant's appeal as
moot.
 
BACKGROUND 
	In 1992, defendant was convicted in a bench trial of the June
8, 1990, murder of Curtis Sims and was sentenced to death. On
direct appeal, this court affirmed defendant's conviction, but
granted him a new sentencing hearing because his waiver of a jury
for sentencing was invalid. People v. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d 132, 153,
164 (1996). In a separate proceeding, held before defendant was
tried and convicted for the Sims murder, a jury found defendant
guilty of the September 16, 1990, murder of Delvin Boelter, and
defendant was sentenced to a 35-year prison term. While
defendant's appeal was pending in this court for the Sims murder,
the appellate court reversed defendant's conviction for the Boelter
murder and remanded that cause for a new trial. People v. Brown,
No. 1-92-2732 (1995) (unpublished order under Supreme Court
Rule 23).
	On remand, defendant's two causes were assigned to separate
trial courts. Defense counsel in this case asked the trial court to
preclude the State from conducting the Boelter retrial before
defendant was resentenced for the Sims murder. After hearing
argument from defense counsel and the State, the trial court denied
defense counsel's request. Thereafter, on February 2, 1997,
defendant was again convicted for the murder of Boelter and was
sentenced to a 35-year prison term.
	On August 25, 1999, jury selection for defendant's new
sentencing hearing for the Sims murder commenced.
	Upon completion of the second stage of the sentencing
hearing, and after considering evidence in aggravation and
mitigation, the jury found no mitigating factors sufficient to
preclude imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, the trial
court sentenced defendant to death.
	Defendant appealed directly to this court under Supreme
Court Rules 603 and 609(a) (134 Ill. 2d Rs. 603, 609(a)). We filed
a decision in the matter on October 18, 2002.  The State
successfully moved to stay our mandate pending certiorari
proceedings, and defendant subsequently filed a petition for
rehearing.  While this matter remained pending in this court on
rehearing, the governor, on January 10, 2003, commuted
defendant's death sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole.

ANALYSIS
	The defendant raises several challenges to the propriety of his
remand for a new sentencing hearing. However, our review of this
matter has been affected by the governor's actions.  Although we
issued a written decision  in this case on October 18, 2002, in
which we vacated defendant's death sentence, as noted, the State
moved on November 8, 2002, for a stay of our mandate pending
the filing of  certiorari proceedings in the United States Supreme
Court. We allowed the motion on November 19, 2002.(1)  In
addition, defendant's filing of his petition for rehearing in
November 2002 prevented our decision from being considered
final.  See PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co., 86 Ill. 2d
291(1981); Glasser v. Essaness Theatres Corp., 346 Ill. App. 72
(1952); Berg v. Allied Securities, 193 Ill. 2d 186, 191-92 (2000)
(Freeman, J., specially concurring) (noting that when a petition for
rehearing is filed, the judgment of the reviewing court does not
become final until the petition is denied). Thus, once defendant
filed a petition for rehearing in this case, the original October 18,
2002, decision was not a final one and was subject to
modification.  In light of the foregoing, on January 10, 2003, the
date of the Governor's commutation action, defendant remained
under an existing sentence of death.
	An appellate issue is moot when it is abstract or presents no
controversy.  People v. Blaylock, 202 Ill. 2d 319, 325 (2002).  An
issue can become moot if circumstances change during the
pendency of an appeal that prevent the reviewing court from being
able to render effectual relief.  People v. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d 286,
294 (2002). In the case at bar, defendant raises issues dealing
solely to his death sentence.  As we have explained, subsequent to
the filing of his petition for rehearing and the State's
commencement of certiorari proceedings, the governor commuted
defendant's death sentence to natural life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole.  Commutation removes the judicially
imposed sentence and replaces it with a lesser executively imposed
sentence.  People ex rel. Johnson v. Murphy, 257 Ill. 564, 566
(1913); Black's Law Dictionary 274 (7th ed. 1999). Thus, the
commutation rendered the sentencing issues raised by defendant
in this appeal moot.  See, e.g., Lewis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va.
31, 38, 235 S.E.2d 329, 325 (1977); State v. Mitchell, 239 Or. 87,
88, 396 P.2d 572, 573 (1964). We therefore must dismiss the
appeal as moot.

CONCLUSION
	For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Appeal dismissed.
	JUSTICE RARICK took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
	 
	 
1.      1The State had 90 days, or until January 18, 2003, to file its petition
for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. See U.S. Supreme
Court R. 13.