Title: People v. Kaczmarek

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

Docket No. 90865-Agenda 1-May 2003.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant and Cross-
Appellee, v. HENRY KACZMAREK, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Opinion filed October 2, 2003.
 
	JUSTICE RARICK delivered the opinion of the court:
	Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County,
defendant, Henry Kaczmarek, was convicted of murder, residential
burglary, home invasion, and armed robbery. Defendant was
sentenced to a term of natural life imprisonment on the murder
conviction, but no sentences were imposed on the other convictions.
Defendant appealed. On March 31, 1993, the appellate court filed an
opinion in which it declined to review defendant's convictions for
residential burglary, home invasion, and armed robbery, due to lack
of finality, but reversed the murder conviction and remanded for a
new trial. People v. Kaczmarek, 243 Ill. App. 3d 1067 (1993). We
denied leave to appeal. People v. Kaczmarek, 151 Ill. 2d 571 (1993).
	Prior to the commencement of his second trial in November of
1996, defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the State's charges
on the grounds that his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy
trial had been violated. Following a retrial by jury, defendant was
again found guilty of murder, and, based upon a trial court finding
that the victim's murder was exceptionally brutal and heinous,
defendant again received an enhanced term of natural life in prison
pursuant to section 5-8-1(a)(1)(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections
(Unified Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a)(1)(b)).
	Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that he had been denied
his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and challenging the validity
of his life sentence, claiming the penalty enhancement scheme
provided by section 5-8-1(a)(1)(b) of the Unified Code is
constitutionally infirm in light of the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435,
120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). The appellate court rejected defendant's
speedy-trial claim, but vacated defendant's life sentence and
remanded for resentencing, concluding that "the penalty scheme set
forth in section 5-8-1(a)(1)(b) of the Corrections Code offends the
constitutional principles announced in Apprendi." 318 Ill. App. 3d
340, 341-42. We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal (177
Ill. 2d R. 315).
	The State argues that the defendant's sentence does not violate
principles of Apprendi or, in the alternative, a violation of Apprendi
does not warrant resentencing given the reasoning of this court's
recent opinions in People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352 (2003) (applying
harmless error analysis to Apprendi violations), and People v. Crespo,
203 Ill. 2d 335 (2001) (applying plain error analysis). By way of
cross-appeal, the defendant reiterates his appellate contention that his
constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
	A comprehensive and detailed recitation of the procedural
history of this case and the evidence adduced at defendant's trial and
sentencing hearing is not necessary for our analysis. The pertinent
facts are those which bear upon the parties' speedy-trial and
sentencing issues. Hence, we will at this juncture summarize the
relevant evidence presented at defendant's retrial, in order to provide
a general overview, and more fully treat facts specifically relating to
the speedy-trial and sentencing issues in our discussion of those
issues.
	Defendant was tried for the murder of 86-year-old Millie
Nielsen. The evidence indicated that defendant broke into Nielsen's
apartment where he stabbed, beat, and strangled her in the course of
an attack that apparently started in Nielsen's kitchen and concluded
in her bedroom. Defendant took items of minimal value from
Nielsen's residence and was later apprehended in possession of some
of her bloodstained personal belongings. When he was arrested,
officers observed bloodstains on the quilted shirt defendant was
wearing, and bloodstained jeans were recovered from the trunk of his
car. A witness testified that he had seen defendant in the back yard of
Nielsen's apartment building on the night of the murder. The witness
saw defendant carry a bag through the back yard, place it in the trunk
of his car, and drive away.
	Dr. Michael Chambliss performed the medical examination of
Nielsen's body and testified to her extensive injuries. Dr. Chambliss
concluded that Nielsen died as a result of manual strangulation with
the contributing factors of blunt force injuries and stab wounds. Dr.
Chambliss stated that Nielsen could have died from the blunt force
injuries alone.
	Pamela Fish, an expert in electrophoresis, serology, and DNA
analysis, testified to the results of her 1987 examination of the
physical evidence. At that time, she determined the blood found on
defendant's jacket and jeans was consistent with Nielsen's blood type
and could not have come from defendant. Fish determined that the
substance on other evidentiary items was human blood, but due to the
small quantity provided, she was unable to identify a particular blood
type. Prior to defendant's second trial, Fish attempted to perform
DNA testing on blood samples collected in this case; however, their
small size and degraded condition made testing ineffective.
	Rod Englert, an expert in crime scene reconstruction and blood
splatter, examined the physical evidence and photographs in the case.
Englert stated that the blood on Nielsen's kitchen floor appeared
smeared, indicative of a struggle in which someone bled. Englert
noted that the blood on the kitchen wall immediately outside the
bedroom represented classic medium velocity splatter, suggestive of
blunt force being inflicted upon the victim. Given the low angle of
projection, Englert believed that Nielsen had received numerous
blows while on the kitchen floor. Englert concluded that the blood on
the knees of defendant's jeans, and the back of his shirt sleeves,
represented transfer stains-blood swiped against something or
someone. The blood on the front of defendant's shirt sleeves
represented medium velocity splatter. The blood at the bottom of
defendant's jeans was also consistent with medium velocity splatter.
Englert testified that these stains were not consistent with defendant
having picked up a bag with blood on it or with such a bag having
been placed on top of clothing. Englert further stated the stains were
not consistent with defendant having kneed another person in the
nose.
	Defendant testified, offering an explanation for the blood on his
clothes and his possession of Nielsen's belongings. Defendant
claimed he had been involved in three fights prior to the night of
Nielsen's murder, and he intimated that the blood on his clothing had
been deposited there during one or more of those altercations.
Defendant claimed two of the fights were with his friends, Tom
Szeszol and Bill Henderson, while a third fight involved an
unidentified man who was attempting to break into defendant's car.
In the latter fight, defendant stated, he hit the man three or four times
in the face and kneed him in the nose. According to defendant,
everyone involved in the fights bled.
	As for his possession of Nielsen's bloodstained property,
defendant stated he had noticed a bag on the side of Nielsen's
apartment building. He looked inside the bag and discovered therein
a box of silverware. He picked up the bag, carried it to his car, and
placed it in the trunk. Later that morning, defendant decided to look
into the bag and removed the bag's contents, some or which were
bloody. Defendant kept some items and disposed of others, including
a bloody pillow case, in a Dumpster. Defendant sold some of the
items for $60.
	Given this evidence, the jury found that defendant had
committed the murder of Millie Nielsen. We turn our attention to a
discussion of the law governing the constitutional right to speedy
trial, followed by a recitation of the circumstances preceding
defendant's retrial and the facts pertinent to defendant's speedy-trial
issue.

SPEEDY TRIAL
	Both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of
Illinois guarantee an accused the right to a speedy trial. U.S. Const.,
amend. VI; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §8. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (1972), the United States
Supreme Court addressed the nature of the constitutional right to a
speedy trial and recognized the need to set out "criteria by which [a
constitutional] speedy trial right is to be judged." Barker, 407 U.S.  at
516, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 109, 92 S. Ct.  at 2185. This court has
acknowledged the competing interests recognized in Barker's
discussion of the constitutional right to speedy trial, and we consider
in our own analysis the "four factors" identified in that case "together
with such other circumstances as may be relevant." Barker, 407 U.S. 
at 533, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 118, 92 S. Ct.  at 2193; People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 46-48 (2001).
		As we observed in Crane:
			"[T]he right to a speedy trial is 'a more vague concept
than other procedural rules,' which makes it 'impossible to
determine with precision when the right has been denied.'
Barker, 407 U.S.  at 521, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 112, 92 S. Ct.  at
2187. Instead, determining whether an accused's
constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated
'necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the
particular context of the case.' Barker, 407 U.S.  at 522, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 112, 92 S. Ct.  at 2188. Because of the
seriousness of the remedy-'a defendant who may be guilty
of a serious crime will go free, without having been
tried'-the right to a speedy trial should always be in balance,
and not inconsistent, with the rights of public justice. Barker,
407 U.S.  at 522, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 112, 92 S. Ct.  at 2188."
Crane, 195 Ill. 2d  at 47.
	In order to strike a proper analytical balance between society's
interests and those of an accused, the Supreme Court in Barker
identified four factors to be considered: the length of the delay; the
reasons for the delay; defendant's assertion of his right; and the
prejudice, if any, to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S.  at 530, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 116-17, 92 S. Ct.  at 2192. No one factor is dispositive. Barker,
407 U.S.  at 530-33, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 116-19, 92 S. Ct. at 2192-93;
Crane, 195 Ill. 2d  at 52. The ultimate determination of whether a
defendant's constitutional speedy-trial right has been violated is
subject to de novo review. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d  at 52. Applying the
Barker factors to the facts of this case, it is clear that defendant's
constitutional right to a speedy trial has not been violated.
	On March 31, 1993, the appellate court filed an opinion in which
it reversed the defendant's murder conviction and remanded for a new
trial. The appellate court's mandate was filed in the circuit court on
July 19, 1993. Defendant's retrial commenced on November 18,
1996.
	When assessing a constitutional speedy-trial claim, the first
consideration is the length of the delay. In general, courts have
recognized a delay approaching one year to be "presumptively
prejudicial." Barker, 407 U.S.  at 530-31, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 117, 92 S. Ct.  at 2192; Crane, 195 Ill. 2d  at 52-53. Obviously, the delay in this
case qualifies as presumptively prejudicial. A finding of "presumptive
prejudice," however, does not imply that the delay will be found to
have actually prejudiced the defendant. Rather, it simply marks the
point at which courts deem the delay unreasonable enough to trigger
the full Barker inquiry. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 656,
120 L. Ed. 2d 520, 531, 112 S. Ct. 2686, 2693 (1992); Crane, 195 Ill. 2d  at 53. Therefore, we next address the second Barker factor, the
reason for the delay.
	During the period beginning on May 28, 1993, and ending
November 18, 1996, the common law record evinces 39 continuances
by agreement of the parties, 3 by order of the court, and 3 granted on
motion of defendant. The case was continued four times because
defense counsel failed to appear. During this period of time,
defendant was represented by six different attorneys-three with the
Cook County public defender's office and three private attorneys-all
of whom required time to familiarize themselves with, what one
described as, "two to three feet" of discovery and the voluminous
record after they assumed responsibility for defendant's
representation. Although the common law record is not a model of
clarity, we have considered it, together with the transcripts contained
in the record on appeal, so that we may do justice to both the State
and the defendant. See People v. Mayo, 198 Ill. 2d 530, 536 (2002).
It would needlessly lengthen this opinion if we were to specifically
address the circumstances of each continuance in this case; however,
we have reviewed individually the circumstances of each delay, and
we conclude that no more than three months of delay can be
attributed to causes independent of the actions of defendant's
attorneys.
	 A delay is considered to have been occasioned by the defendant
when the defendant's acts caused or contributed to the delay. Mayo,
198 Ill. 2d  at 537. When a defense attorney requests a continuance on
behalf of a defendant, any delay caused by that continuance will
obviously be attributed to the defendant. Mayo, 198 Ill. 2d  at 537.
Moreover, an agreement to continue the case is properly chargeable
to defendant. People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81, 115, 121 (1998); see
People v. Plair, 292 Ill. App. 3d 396, 398, 400 (1997). Further, when
a defendant's attorney fails to appear in court at the appointed time,
his absence causes a delay attributable to the defendant. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d  at 117. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of this
case, we find that the defendant caused or contributed to nearly all the
pretrial delay at issue.
	 Defendant's suggestion that the lengthy delay between remand
and retrial was the result of the State's failure to timely disclose
material in discovery is belied by those transcripts that have been
made a part of the record on appeal which reveal no pertinent
objections or complaints by defendant's attorneys with respect to the
State's disclosure of materials. This observation also applies to
defendant's contention that the protracted delay resulted solely from
the State's efforts to obtain additional testing of bloodstained
evidentiary items. Until defendant's final attorney filed a motion for
discharge on speedy-trial grounds just before trial, defendant's
preceding attorneys seemed perfectly content to continue the case by
agreement or on defense motion, either because they were unprepared
to proceed, or because they wanted to see if blood testing would
corroborate defendant's testimony from his first trial, which
suggested that the blood on his clothing had come from a source other
than Nielsen. While it is true that the State used the period between
remand and retrial to pursue further testing, defendant cannot escape
the consequences of his attorneys' conduct which caused or
contributed to most of the delay.
	With respect to the third Barker factor, the defendant's assertion
of his speedy-trial right, we note that a defendant is bound by the
actions of his attorney, unless the defendant clearly and convincingly
asserts his right to discharge his attorney. Mayo, 198 Ill. 2d  at 537;
Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d  at 118. As this court observed in People v.
Bowman, 138 Ill. 2d 131, 141 (1990): "In criminal proceedings, an
attorney is authorized to act for his client and determine for him
procedural matters and decisions involving trial strategy and tactics.
[Citations.] Thus, the affirmative acts of a defendant's counsel cannot
be separated from the defendant's own acts." Defendant in this case
was at all pertinent times represented by counsel.
	Defendant at various times attempted to assert his right to a
speedy trial; however, until shortly before retrial, he did so against the
wishes of his attorneys, who were not prepared or inclined to proceed.
Generally, the decision to demand a speedy trial and to seek dismissal
of the State's charges on such grounds are matters left to the sound
strategic decision of counsel. See People v. Ramey, 151 Ill. 2d 498,
523-24 (1992). As this court observed in Bowman, "[d]efendant
cannot contend that it was unfair to force him to choose between a
speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. Defendant may have
a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to pursue whichever course
he chooses, but the Constitution does not forbid requiring him to
choose nonetheless." Bowman, 138 Ill. 2d  at 148. Defendant made his
choice in this matter.
	Defendant first "asserted" his right to a speedy trial on July 21,
1993, when appointed counsel informed the court that defendant, "on
his own motion," was demanding a speedy trial. Counsel told the
court, "I certainly would not be ready at this point professionally."
The court warned the defendant of the dangers of proceeding with an
attorney who was not prepared. Defendant responded, "I'll wait." He
explicitly agreed to a continuance.
	On October 12, 1994, defendant made an oral, pro se motion for
discharge on statutory speedy-trial grounds. The circuit court advised
defendant to put his motion in writing. Defendant subsequently filed
a written, pro se motion on November 18, 1994, claiming a violation
of "the speedy trial act." Defendant, acting in a pro se capacity,
announced he was ready for trial on that date. He was given the
opportunity to argue his pro se motion, but admitted he was not ready
to do so and requested a continuance. The court denied defendant's
request for a "bar association lawyer." Defendant did not ask to
discharge appointed counsel and proceed pro se.
	Hearing on defendant's pro se motion was later continued again
because defendant was not prepared to proceed. We find nothing in
the record which would indicate that defendant's motion was ever
argued or that the court rendered a ruling thereon. The same is true
with respect to a second pro se motion for appointment of a "bar
association attorney." Defendant never attempted to assert his right
to discharge his attorney and proceed to an immediate trial. The
record unequivocally shows that defendant wanted the assistance of
counsel in preparing his defense for trial. Thus, defendant is bound by
the actions of his attorneys. See Mayo, 198 Ill. 2d  at 537
	The fourth and final consideration in the Barker analysis is
prejudice to the defendant. Prejudice must be assessed in the light of
the interests of defendants which the speedy-trial right was designed
to protect. Barker, 407 U.S.  at 532, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 118, 92 S. Ct.  at
2193. Those interests are (1) the prevention of oppressive pretrial
incarceration, (2) the minimization of defendant's anxiety and
concern about the pending charge, and (3) the limitation of the
possibility that the defense will be impaired by the delay. Barker, 407 U.S.  at 532, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 118, 92 S. Ct.  at 2193; Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 
at 59. The third factor has been recognized by the Supreme Court as
the most serious " 'because the inability of a defendant adequately to
prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system.'" Doggett,
505 U.S.  at 654, 120 L. Ed. 2d  at 530, 112 S. Ct.  at 2692, quoting
Barker, 407 U.S.  at 532, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 118, 92 S. Ct.  at 2193.
	In this case, defendant has not specified how his ability to
prepare his defense was impaired or adversely affected by the delay
in retrying the murder charge If witnesses die or disappear during a
delay, prejudice is obvious. Clearly, there is also prejudice if defense
witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant past.
See Barker, 407 U.S.  at 532, 33 L. Ed. 2d  at 118, 92 S. Ct.  at 2193.
We see no evidence of such prejudice in this case. With the exception
of additional blood-splatter evidence in defendant's second trial, the
evidence adduced by both sides at defendant's second trial was
substantially the same as the evidence properly presented at his first
trial. The State's use of blood-splatter evidence at the second trial
does not qualify as impairment of defendant's ability to present his
defense.
	Defendant also claims that he experienced anxiety while
awaiting retrial. We note that this factor is present to some extent in
every case and absent some unusual showing, this inconvenience
alone is of slight import. People v. Wills, 153 Ill. App. 3d 328, 337
(1987); 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure §18.2, at 410
(1984). No doubt much of the anxiety defendant experienced was the
result of having been already once tried by a jury, having been found
guilty of Nielsen's murder, and having been sentenced to a term of
natural life imprisonment. We are of the opinion that the weight to be
accorded the first two components of the fourth Barker factor is
minimal under the circumstances of this case.
	The balancing that we are required to perform must take into
account the rights of the defendant, but does not preclude the rights
of public justice. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d  at 62. Although the delay between
remand and retrial was indeed lengthy, and the State admittedly used
that time to its advantage, the defendant cannot escape responsibility
for causing or contributing to most of the delay. Considering that fact,
together with lack of any showing that the delay impaired the
presentation of a defense, we conclude that defendant's constitutional
right to a speedy trial was not violated. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the appellate court in this respect.
APPRENDI ISSUE
	The State's Apprendi argument in this case has changed with our
evolving Apprendi jurisprudence. The State's original brief was filed
prior to our decisions in People v. Swift, 202 Ill. 2d 378 (2002),
People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352 (2003), and People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335 (2001).
	Relying upon our decisions in People v. Ford, 198 Ill. 2d 68
(2001), and People v. Hopkins, 201 Ill. 2d 26, 40 (2002) ("when any
statutory enhancing aggravating factor is proved to exist beyond a
reasonable doubt, *** the original sentencing range increases
according to the statutory scheme"), the State initially argues that the
jury's findings of guilt on charges of residential burglary, home
invasion, and armed robbery at defendant's first trial were sufficient
to expand the sentencing range in this case and thus satisfy the
requirements of Apprendi as interpreted by this court in Ford and
Hopkins. The State reasons that the first jury's findings were the
equivalent of finding that defendant committed the murder in the
course of another felony, an aggravating factor that would have made
the defendant eligible for the death penalty. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985,
ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)(6). Pursuant to this court's decisions in Ford and
Hopkins, a sentence of natural life would thus have been within the
allowable sentencing range, and a finding that defendant had engaged
in brutal and heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty could
have been used to set the specific sentence within the allowable
range. Alternatively, in its original brief, citing, inter alia, Neder v.
United States, 527 U.S. 1, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35, 119 S. Ct. 1827 (1999),
the State argued that any Apprendi error in this case could be
considered harmless because "the record clearly reflects that
defendant murdered 86-year-old Millie Nielsen 'in a brutal or heinous
fashion indicative of wanton cruelty' when he repeatedly beat,
stabbed and strangled her after breaking into her apartment."
	In its reply brief, the State acknowledged this court's holding in
Swift-defendant's 80-year sentence violated Apprendi because it was
based on the trial judge's factual finding that the behavior was
exceptionally brutal or heinous-but bolstered its position by reference
to this court's decision in Thurow, wherein this court, for the first
time, held that an Apprendi error could be deemed harmless. See
Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d  at 369-71. The State later obtained leave to cite
this court's decision in Crespo as additional authority. In Crespo, this
court held that the virtually identical Apprendi error, that had
warranted reversal in Swift, was not plain error that would warrant
reversal. The court reasoned:
		"On the basis of this overwhelming evidence that the crime
was brutal and heinous, there is no basis for concluding that
the Apprendi violation 'seriously affected the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' We
have no doubt that a jury, presented with these facts, would
have found that the crime was committed in a brutal and
heinous manner, indicative of wanton cruelty. Accordingly,
defendant has failed to show that the error was prejudicial."
Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d  at 348-49.
	Clearly, after Swift there can be no doubt that the sentencing
judge in this case violated principles of Apprendi when he sentenced
defendant to an enhanced term of natural life based upon his finding
that the murder was committed in a brutal and heinous manner
indicative of wanton cruelty. However, it is equally clear, after
Thurow and Crespo, that an Apprendi violation of this kind will not
warrant resentencing where there is overwhelming evidence that the
crime was committed in a brutal and heinous manner indicative of
wanton cruelty. The conduct of the defendant in this instance
qualifies as exceptionally brutal and heinous behavior indicative of
wanton cruelty under any definition. Thus, defendant-who failed to
object at trial-cannot demonstrate prejudice for purposes of plain
error analysis.
	The medical examination of Nielsen's body by Dr. Chambliss
revealed extensive external and internal injuries. In the course of his
external examination, Chambliss found multiple abrasions, bruises
and incises about Nielsen's upper body, including her head, chest and
arms. Stab wounds were also found on her left thigh, the left part of
her groin, and right forearm. Two additional incise wounds were
noted on her left leg. An internal exam revealed injuries indicative of
manual strangulation, including hemorrhages of the larynx, tongue
and esophagus, as well as numerous blunt trauma injuries, including
hemorrhaging of the membrane of the brain and a fractured larynx.
Although Chambliss concluded that Nielsen died as a result of
manual strangulation, with contributing factors of blunt force injuries
and stab wounds, he believed the blunt force injuries were so severe
that she could have died from them alone. From Chambliss'
testimony, it is clear that Nielsen's body was literally covered with
bruises. Physical evidence in this case suggests an intense and
prolonged struggle that began in Nielsen's kitchen and ended in her
bedroom.
	This court defines "heinous" behavior as behavior that is
hatefully or shockingly evil; grossly bad; enormously and flagrantly
criminal. People v. Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d 271, 299 (1999); People v.
Lucas, 132 Ill. 2d 399, 445 (1989); People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482, 501 (1981). "Brutal" behavior is behavior that is grossly
ruthless, devoid of mercy or compassion; cruel and cold-blooded.
Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d  at 299; Lucas, 132 Ill. 2d  at 445; La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d  at 501. Finally, "wanton cruelty" requires proof that the defendant
consciously sought to inflict pain and suffering on the victim of the
offense. Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d  at 299; People v. Pastewski, 164 Ill. 2d 189, 194 (1995).
	 The senseless, vicious murder of this elderly woman, effected
by means of beating, stabbing and strangling, in order to perpetrate a
robbery that could have been easily accomplished without killing her,
undoubtedly qualifies as exceptionally brutal and heinous behavior.
The manner of the murder clearly indicates that the defendant
consciously inflicted unnecessary mental and physical suffering on
his victim, indicative of wanton cruelty. We have no doubt that a jury,
presented with these facts, would have found that the crime was
committed in a brutal and heinous manner, indicative of wanton
cruelty. Accordingly, we find that the failure to comply with the
dictates of Apprendi does not require resentencing. In this respect, the
judgment of the appellate court is reversed, the remainder of the
appellate court's judgment is affirmed, and the judgment of the circuit
court is affirmed.



Appellate court judgment affirmed
in part and reversed in part;
circuit court judgment affirmed.



	JUSTICE KILBRIDE, specially concurring:
	Today's decision follows People v. Swift, 202 Ill. 2d 378 (2002),
People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352 (2003), and People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335 (2001). I dissented from the majority in Thurow and
Crespo because I believed, and continue to believe, that an Apprendi
violation can never be subject to a harmless error review.
Nonetheless, having voiced my disagreement previously, I reluctantly
concur in today's opinion only because the doctrine of stare decisis
requires that we adhere to established precedent, even if certain
members of the court disagree. People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d 312,
338 (2000).