No. 2-- 04--1099

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 03-- CF--1756 ) ROBERT D. BROWN, ) Ho no r ab le ) Joseph G. McGraw, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CECA

LL UM de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a ju ry t r ial, de fen da nt , Ro be r t D. Br o wn , wa s c o nvic ted of home in vasi on (720 ILCS 5/ 12- -1 1( a) (1 ) ( West 200 2) ). The St at e move d t o s ent ence defend ant as an h abi tual cri mi nal pur sua nt to section 33B --1 of the Cri m i na l Code of 1961 ( Code) (7 20 IL CS 5/3 3B--1 (We st 2002 )). Af ter a sentenc in

g heari ng, the trial

court adj udged defe

ndan t anhab itual

crim in al an d s en t en ce d h im to the Departmen

t o f Corrections f

or natural lif

e i n pri son wi

thout chan

ce for parole. Defend ant 's mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er t he se nt en ce wa s d en ied , an d t his a pp ea l fo llo we d. We affir m. Defend ant contends that the trial court erred in

sentenci ng hi m un der the hab itual

off ender stat ute. Section 33B-- 1 of the Cod e pro vides:

"(a) E ve ry pe r so n w ho ha s b ee n t wic e c o nvi ct ed in a ny s tateor federal court of an offense that co ntains the sam e elem ents as an offen

se now classi

fi ed in Ill in ois as a Class XNo. 2-- 04--1099

-2-

fe lo ny, cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult , ag gr av at ed kid napp ing o rfirs t de gr ee mur de r , an d is thereafter convi cted of a Class

X fel ony, crim in al sex ual assaul t o r fi rst degree murder, comm

itted after t he 2 p r io rco nvic t io ns, sha ll be a dju dg ed an ha bit ua l cr iminal. (b) The 2 prior co nvi

ctions n eed not have b een f

or t he sam

e off ense. (c) A ny con vi cti ons wh i ch res ul t f rom or ar e co nnect ed w ith t he sa me tra ns ac ti on, or r es ult fr om

of f ense s c om

m i tted a t the sa me ti me, s ha l l be cou nte d f or th e p urp ose s of

t hi s Sec t ion as one co nvictio n. (d) T his A r t icle shal

l n ot appl y un le ss each of the f oll owing requi

remen ts are satisf

ie d: (1 ) the th i rd of f ense wa s c om m i tted af ter th e e f f ecti v e date of th i s A ct; (2) t he t hird o ffens e w as co mmitt ed wit hin 2 0 ye ar s o f t h e d ate th at judgm ent was entered on the fi rst co nvi ct ion, pr ovid ed, how ever , t hat t ime spent in cust od y shall not be counted; (3) the third off

ense was comm

itted after convi

ction on the second of

fen se; (4) the second off

ense was comm

itted after convi

ction on the f

irst off ense. (e) E xc ep t wh en t he de at h p en alt y is im posed, any

one adj udged an h

abi tual cri mi nal sha ll be sen tenced to li fe i

mprisonm ent." (Emphasi s added.) 720 ILCS 5/33B-- 1 (West 2002) . Defend ant does not dispute that he has the prior convi

ctions n ecessary for the i mposi tion of h abi tual crim in al sentenci ng. However, he a

rgues that the State

did not prove, purs

uan t to secti on 33B
-- 1(d)(4), t hat hi s second off ense was comm

itted after he was

convi cted of hi s f

irst off ense. A def endan t's e l i gi bi l i ty f or s entenci

ng as an ha bit ua l cr imina l mu st be pr o ve d b y a preponderanceof the ev

i den ce. Pe o ple v. E ag lin , 292 Ill . App. 3d 677, 682 (1997). "The date t hatNo. 2-- 04--1099

-3-

an off ense was com

m i tted may be establ i shed b

y ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce[,] such as

a certif ie d copy of the con vi cti on or a presentence inv

estigation repo rt. " Peop l e v . Wal ton , 240 Ill . App. 3d 49, 57 (1992 ). At sentenci

ng, the State submi

tt ed a veri

fi ed statement that averred, in par t , t hat defend ant was co nvic t ed o f cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult (720 ILCS 5/12--13 (West 1992)) o n March 20, 199 2, and of hom e i nv as i on ( 720

IL CS 5/1 2-- 11( a)( 1) (W es t 199 2)) on O ctob er 1 8, 1 993 . A ttac he d to t he st at ement we r e c er t ifie d st atem en ts of c onv

i cti on f or case Nos. 91- -CR-- 09895 01 an d 93--CR-- 1954401. Regardin

g these certif

ie d statements, the trial

court asked the f

oll owing: "T HE COURT: Al

l ri ght. Mr. Kli

ne [def ense couns el ], do you agree th at the certi f i ca ti on establ is hes that pri or t o t he com mi ssion of thi s off

ense, that [defen

dant] was convi cted of cri mi nal sexual as sa ul t on Ma rc h 20 , 19 92 , i

n Coo k C oun

ty i n c ase No. 91--C R-- 0989501? MR. KLINE: Yes. THE CO UR T: All rig ht . D o you ag re e t hat pr io r t o t he c o nvict io n fo r t his o ffe nse , [d ef en da n t] wa s fo un d g uilt y o f a C las s X felo ny o f ho me inv as io n o n O ct o be r18 , 19 93 , in Cook Co unty i

n case No. 93-- CR--1954401? MR. K LINE: Yes ." The cour t also cons i dered the prese nten ce re port. The c

ri m i na l history por ti on sh owe d th at, in case No. 91-- CF--0989501, defen dant was arrested on March 27, 1991, and sen tenced on March 20, 1992. In case No. 93--CF--1954401, defen dant was arrested on July 22, 1993, and sen

tenced on October 18, 1993. The c our t ad j udge d def

en da n t an h ab i tual cri m i n al an d s en ten ce d h i m to life i m pri son men t.No. 2-- 04--1099

-4-

We co nc lud e t ha t de fen da nt 's a r gu men t is wai ved f or two i nd ep en dent rea sons. F i

rs t, se cti on 33B--2( c) of the Co de pro vides:

"Any cl ai m th at a pr ev i ous con v i cti on of f ered b y th e p r o se cu t io n i s not a former con vi cti on of a n offens e s et f

orth in Sect ion 3 3B- -1 beca use of t he exist ence of a ny exce pt ions des cr ibed in t his Act , is wa ive d unless duly rais ed at the heari

ng on such co nvictio n, or u nless t he pr os ecu t ion's p ro of sho ws t he exi stence of suc h exceptions des crib ed i n th i s Act." 720

ILCS 5/33B --2(c) (W

est 200 2). Here, r elying up o n t he ex ce pt io n fo un d in se cti on 33B--1(d)(4), defen

dant argues that the trial courtmist ak en ly co nsid er ed his s ec o nd co nvic t io n, be ca us e t he ev ide nc e d id n o t sho w w he n t ha t cr ime was comm

itted. However, he di d not raise thi s argum ent at sent encing. In Peop l e v . Wal ton , 240 I ll. App. 3d 49 , 57 -5 9 ( 19 92 ), th

e def en da n t ar gu ed th at th e S tate f ai l ed to pr ese nt evidenc e r ega rd ing t he date whe n his se co nd o ffen se wa s c o mmit t ed . T he co ur t he ld t ha t t he de fen da nt did no t , at his sent encing h ea

ri n g, a rgue th at th e S tate f ai l ed to m eet i ts bu rde n of proof re gar ding whe n t he se co nd felony was comm

itted an d that the i ss

uewa s th ere f ore wai ve d: " [A ]n

y al l eg ati on th at the Sta te hasnot proveda def

endan t's pri or co nv ictio ns wit h sufficient co mpet ent evidenc e must be br ou ght t o t he atte ntiono f the sentenci

ng court, and a fai

lure to do so r esul

ts in a wai ver of the issue on appeal . " W al ton , 240 Ill . App. 3d at 59. We bel iev e that t he legisl

atur e enacted se cti on 33B
-- 2(c ) to av oi d the p rec i se

si tua ti on presented he r e. I f de fen da nt wis he d t o ch all eng e the Sta te' s p res en

tati on of the hom e i nv as i on con vi cti on and the tr ial

cour t's consi der at ion t hereof i n determi ni ng whether he was a

n ha bi tual off ender, t he stat ute r equired that he raise t he issue at sent encing fo r t he t rial co ur t 's co nsider at ion. The dis sent's f

ocu s on general

wai ver pri nc i ples a nd d ue proce ss, d

ecl ari ng th at we c an not requ i reNo. 2-- 04--1099

-5-

defend ant t o r aise issu es p er t aining to fai lures of proof at sentenci

ng, m is ses the m

ark. I t co mple t ely ign ores--indeed, it does not even m ention--the fact t hat the waiver here is codif ie d . W e n ote, too, th

at, contrar y to the dis sent's assertion, thi s i s not a situation wh ere the State's proo f s

howed the existence of the exception. Indeed, the State's proo f di d not directly

establ is h whether the second off

ense was comm itted befo re or aft er t he first co nvictio n. E ither way, defend ant re mained silent re gar ding t he possi bl e app l i cation of

section 33B-- 1(d)(4) . Defend ant 's o bje ct io n t o his sentence i s wa i ve d also be caus e he f

ail ed to rai se th

i s i ssue b ef

ore t he trial court in hi s m ot ion to reconsi der the sentence . See Pe o ple v. Po o le , 167 Ill . App. 3d 7, 16-17 (1988 ); se e al so Pe o ple v. Da vis , 205 Ill . A pp. 3d 8 65, 872(19 90) . Now he re i n h i s w ri tten moti on to r ec o nsid er , o rat o r al a r gu men t o n t he mo t io n, did de fen da nt o bje ct t ha t t he co ur t ha d e rr ed in sent encing hi

m asan ha bi tual of f en der b ecause there was n o evi dence that his second off ense was co mmitt ed

af ter his f i rst con vi cti on. W hi l e we h av e the di scre tion , und er the plai n-e rror ru l e, t o address is sues that would otherwis e be wai ved, in cl udin g errors o r defects af

fecti ng sub stantial

ri gh ts (see 134 I ll . 2d R. 6 15( a); People v . Burke , 362 Ill . App. 3d 99, 103 (2005)), an all eged error t hat con sists solel y of a question of

proo f conce

rni ng a defen dant's se ntence is not subj ect to the pl ai n- err or rule. Po o le , 1 67 I ll. App. 3d a t 17 ( hold ing plain-e rr or ru le did no t app ly and t he defend ant 's ar gument that trial judge im properly considered a

pr ev io us co nvic t io n w he n imp o sing a life se nt en ce up o n him was waiv ed). Acco rdingl

y, def endant's argument fai

ls. The j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court o f W

in neb ago County i s af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. GROMETE R, P.J. , concur s. JUSTICE McLAR

EN, disse ntin g:No. 2-- 04--1099

-6-

It is cl ear that the St ate never al le ged or pr ove d t he da t e o f the co mmi ssio n of d efenda nt 's sec ond off

en se, a requi red el em en t of hab i tual cri m i na l sen tenc i ng. H owev er, the ma

jori ty f in ds wai ver in de fen da nt 's f

ailu r e t o o bje ct t o an alle ga t io n not made , ev i denc e n ot adduc ed , an

d pr oof s n ot establ is hed by an y l egal stan dard. Th e c o nce pt o f waiver rel at es to failure to object to eviden ce in tro duced, not to a

f ai l ure of pro of. An al

legation m

ust be made, a nd a f act m ust b e pres en

ted, b ef ore a defend ant 's silenc e ca n wai v e ob j ecti on to i t. We c an

n ot re qui rea def en da n t to b e p re sc i en

t, ant icipat ingnoniss ues and o bject ing t o q ues t ions t hat have not b een asked . F urth erm ore, f ai l ure of proof is not est ablished by pr oving t he co nt ra ry co nclusio n, a nd a d efenda nt canno t pr ove t he neg at ive of an al le gation that is

never made . The maj ori

ty has p l ac ed

the bu rde n of proof upon the defendant to pro ve that he is not elig ible f orsentenci

ng as an hab itual of f en der. Th i s is p arti cul arl y egregi ousi

n l i gh t of th e f act th at th e S tate so cl ea rl y f ai l ed to pres en t a pr ima fa cie ca se

th at def en da n t wa s e l i gi b l e to b e s o se

n ten ce d. A pa rty f ai l s to make ou

t a pr ima fa cie cas e whe n it fails t o p re sent at least so me evidenc e o n ever y element essen tial to the cau se of

action. Pe o ple v. Gi

bs on , 357 Ill . App. 3d 4 80, 486 (2 005 ). Only where t he burden of product ion i

s satis fi ed i s the trier of f

act permi tt ed to fi nd the b urden of persuas ion s atisf

ie d. Pe o ple v. Rob i

ns on , 16 7 I ll. 2d 5 3, 7 5 (1 995 ). Ev en where the State sa ti sf i esi ts b urden of prod uc ti on re gar ding a b as ic fa ct , a d efe nd an t be ar s no bu r de n t o pr o du ce his ow n evidenc e t o p re vent t he court f rom finding fa ct s t ha t may b e in fer r ed fr o m pr ima fa cie evi den ce. Rob i ns on , 167 Il

l . 2d at 75 . I ca nn ot conc l ude that the l

egi slatureintend ed t hat a de fendant sho uld be r equ ired t o c ar ry t he burden of proof to establ i sh

non qual i f i cation as an ha bi tual off ender. Furtherm ore, the relationshi

p between a def

endan t and hi s counsel

and t he ef

f ec ti ve ne ss of co un se l's r ep r es en t at io n a r e c alle d in t o qu es t io n if a def en da n t i s req ui re d to objec t and br ing t o t heNo. 2-- 04--1099

-7-

St at e's attenti

on a d efic ien cy inits pl

eadi ngs an d proo fs . "At a mi

ni mum , defense counsel

mus t act as a tru e advocat e for the accused, subj ecting the prosecu to r's case to mea ni ngf ul adversa ri al testi ng." Pe o ple v. Shel

ton , 28 1 I ll. App. 3d 1027, 1037 (1996), citin g Uni ted St at es v. Cr o nic , 466 U.S. 648, 656, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657, 666, 104 S . Ct. 2039, 2045 (1984). In conside r in g a defendant' s c l ai

m of ineffect iveas sista

nc e of counsel , we must examine t he "fund ament al fairness of t he pr oc eed ing and consider 'whet her *** t he r esu lt o f the par t icular pr oc eed ing is u nr elia ble be ca us e o f a b r ea kd o wn in t he adversarial

pro cess that o ur system counts on t o pr oduce just r esults.' " Shel ton , 281 I ll. App. 3d at 1036-37, quot in

g Stri ckl an d v . Washi

ng ton , 466 U.S. 668, 69 6, 8 0 L . Ed . 2d 67 4, 6 99 , 10 4 S . C t. 2052, 2069 (19 84). Defense counsel can not act as a true advoc ate f

or a def endan t and an adversa ry to the St ate if h

e is requi red t o remin

d the St ate t hat it forgo t t o submi t so me of i

ts pro ofs. The St at e's p ro of it self est ablishes t he exi stence of the ex ception contai

ned i n s ection 33B
-- 1(d)(4) (the seco nd offen

se was co mmi

t t ed a fte r t he co nvictio n of t he first offense ), t her eby nega t ing any cl ai m of wai ver under s ection 33B--2. The State fai le d to present any

proo f of the date on whi ch th e s ec o nd o ffens e w as co mmitt ed . C o nsid er ing t hat t he b ur de n o f pro vi ng the dates o f the f

irst con vi cti on an d t he se co nd o ffen se wa s o n t he St at e, t his complete fai lure of proo f is no less

evi dence of t he exist ence of t he exc ept ion t han if the St at e had affirmatively pr ove d t hat t he se co ndoffense had occurred be f

ore t he co nvic t io n in

t he fi rst case. See E ag lin , 29 2 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 684 (tri al cou rt di d n ot err i n de cl i ni ng to se nten ce the def endan t as an ha bi tual cri m i na l wh ere the rec orddid not est ablish a con vi cti on on th e f i rs t of f ense b ef oreth e c om

m i ss i on of th e s ec on d of

f ense an d th usth e " el em en ts of the A ct ha ve not be en sati sf i ed" ). While a defend ant do es inde ed be ar t he burden of o bject ing in the t rial co ur t t o inco mpet ent evi dence proffe red by t he St at e, t he St at e also car ries t he bur den o f alleging and p ro ving all theNo. 2-- 04--1099

-8-

required el em ents of i ts case, and the trial

court is burdened w

ith f in din g th at a l lof

th e required el em en ts ar e pr ove n by

a p re po nde ra nce o f t he e vide nce befo re impo sing a life sentence . In this case, it is u nd isp ut ed t ha t t he St at e fa iled t o pr o pe r ly alle ge o rpr o ve t ha t de fen da nt co mmit t ed his sec ond off ense af ter he was convi

cted of his first offense . I t is also undisp ut ed t hat t he trial court im posed a sentence of l if e i mprisonm ent in the absen

ce of an y e vi de nc e r ega rd ing t his req uire ment. Yet t he
maj ori ty hold s o nly defendant ac co un t ab le fo rhis nonobj ection to the St ate's f ai lure to present a pr ima fac ie case. The m

aj ority l ets pass wi

thout comm

ent the State's fai

lure to all ege and prove a proper cause of action and, egregi ously , the trial court 's i mposi tion of a l if e sentenc e i

n the cl ear absen ce of evi dence regardi

ng a statuto ry requi

remen t. The maj ority se em s m

ore concerned

abo ut t he i ss

ueof defend ant 's wai

v er th an i t doe s a b out t he impos itio n o f a l if e sentenc e i

n a si tuation where the Act "sh al l not app l y ." See 7 20 IL CS 5/3 3B--1 (d) (West 200 2). This i s n ot a gam e of "Gotcha," w

here t he trial cour t can impose a

lif e se nt ence beca use defend ant was not quick eno ugh t o o bject t o t he St at e's fai lure to prove its case. The h abi tual cri mi nal statute prov

i desvery pr ec i se gui de l i n es f or i ts appl i cation. People v . Glover , 17 3 I ll. App. 3d 678, 685 (1988). The sentence i s not to be i

mposed when the requirem

ents are not met, whether o r not the defendant objects. A defend ant ha s a f

und am en tal ri ght to be

l awf ull y sen tenc ed. People v . Ri

vera , 307 Ill . App. 3d 821 , 8 34 ( 199 9) . I t is well est ablished t hat a t rial co ur t canno t impose a pe nalty no t allowe d by t he sent encing statut e i

n question, and "[a] sen

tence im posed withoutsta

tutor y au th ori ty i s n ot s ub j ect to a de fend ant 's fo rfeitur e." P eople v . Palm er , 2 18 I ll. 2d 1 48, 154 (2 006 ) ( involving co nt ent ions re gar ding t he ap plicat ion o f the habitu al criminal sta t ut e t hat wer e neit her ra ised a t t he se nt en cin g hear ingno rinc lud ed in apo st t r ial m ot ion) . Th e p l ai n- err or doctri ne "p erm i ts re vi ew of i l l eg al or im permi ssible sen

tences." Burke , 36 2 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 103 . If ever a ca se cal l ed out f or a p l ai n- err orNo. 2-- 04--1099

-9-

anal ysi s, thi s i s i t. Thi s doctri

ne encom pas ses those e rr ors t hat are obvi

ous, t hat aff

ect substanti al rights, an d that w oul

d b e a n a f f ron t to the i nte gri ty an d re puta ti on o f t he jud icia l sys t em. In r e G. W. , 357 Ill . App. 3d 1058, 1061 (2005). Clearl y, suc h an error o ccurred

in this ca se. Few r ight s ca n be
m ore substantial

than the l ib erty i nterest im pli catedby a sent ence of life in priso n, a nd the i m pos i ti on of su ch a s ent ence in li

ght of t he St at e's obvi

ous fai lure of proo f would, indeed , be an affro nt t o t he i n teg ri ty of the j udic ia

l s ys tem. Such

an o ut co me c an no t be allo we d t o st an d, ev en if a d efe nd an t fails to poi n t out th e S tate ' s f ai l ur e i n th e tr i al cou rt. The ma jori ty arguest hat "an a lleged e rr or t hat co nsist s so lely of a qu est ion o f pro of c onc er ning a defe ndan t's senten ce i s not subj ect to t he pla in- er r o rrule . " S lip o p. at 5. Wo uld pla in e rr o rap ply if the State pre sente d e vi

denc e of only o ne pr ior co nvictio n? No evidenc e at all? Ther e alre ady is no re quir ement tha

t the State gi ve a def en da nt n oti cepri ort o t he se nt enc in

g heari ng that it wi

ll seek hab itual cri m i n al se n ten ci n g; "n oti ce i s s uf f i ci en t i f th e p eti ti on i s f i rs t re ad to the defe ndant at t he hear ing and he i s all

owed t o respo nd to the recidiv ist charges bef

ore a sent ence i s im

posed. " Pe o ple
v. Le vin , 15 7 I l l . 2d

13 8, 1 52 (1 99 3) . Th

e m aj ori ty wou l d s eem to h ol d th

at th e S tate i s req ui re d to do not hi ng other than ask the court for habi tual cri mi nal sentenci ng. If a t r ial c o ur t ca n imp o se it in t he abse nce o f one re quir ement , it sur ely can impos e it in t he absence of al l requi rements. Acco rd ing to the maj ority's l

ogic, this court would not review such a sentencin

g because it de alt wi

th a "q ue sti on of proof." Instead of deal in g with thi s m is carriage of

jus ticen ow, th e m

aj ori ty cho os es t o s it bac k and aw ait t he ine vit ab le po st co nvi ct io n p et it io n a lleg ing ine ffe ct ive as sis t an ce o f c o un se l. Ob vio us ly, t he performa nce of a def ense couns el

who fai ls to obje ct to the Stat e' s f ai lure to al leg e a nd pr o ve all el em en ts of it s ca se, t her eby pr ejudicing his c lientwit h a se nt enc e o f li

fe i n pri son, mus

t be consideredNo. 2-- 04--1099

-10-

to ha ve f al l en be l owan obj ective standard of reasonable ness . See St rick land , 466 U.S. at 6 87, 8 0 L. Ed. 2d at 6 93, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Base d up on it s inte rp re t at ion o f waiver and it s plac ing o f the burden to obje ct on defen

dant an d h is

counsel , the maj ority h

as af fi rmed def endan t's senten ce even thoughhi s atto rney

fai le d to test t he pl

eadi ngs, proofs, and ev

ide nce a nd l iter ally pro vided no repres en tation at al l . This i s a s i

tuati on wh

erethe proceed

i ngs were so d ef ecti v e th at th ey ca l l i n to que sti on the integrity of a j udicial process t hat , incr edibly, t he maj ori ty co nst rue s a s ha ving co rr ec t ly im prisone d a ma n fo rhis n at ur al life . I t is ir o nic t ha t de fen se co un se l i s required t o k now all the re qui re men ts o f h ab i tual cri m i n al se n ten ci n g, a n d y et th e m aj ori ty wo uld no t find him

i ne f f ec ti ve f or faili ng t o o bjec t t o a fa ilure o f pro of a nd wo uld allo w t he t rial co ur t t o s ent ence a de fendant represented by

patent ly in eff ective counsel to life i

n prison wi

thou t pr oper pleadi

ngs and proo fs. The rea l que sti on i s n ot whet her defend ant was des er ving o f such a sent ence but whet her t he Sta te properl y al l eged and prov ed that he

wasdes ervi

ng. The St at e failed misera bly i n its p ro sec ut ion. The major ity has r eco nst itu t ed t he co ncep t of w aiver a nd has per ver t ed t he Lati n l egal maxi m , " ne mo tenetur sei

psum accusa re ," "t hat no man is bound to accuse hi msel f," so that a man

can now accuse himse lf (mak e de fect ive plead ings pr op er ) a nd inc r iminat e h imse lf (f

ail to obje ct to defec

tive pl eadi ngs and proof) b

y rem ai ni ng s i l en t duri ng th i s proce edi

ng. Th e m aj ority , thro ugh its p er ver sion o f the concept of wai

ver, has c reated a proceeding wh

ere ple adi ngs an d proo fs are unne cessary

so long as t he de f en da n t an d h i s l ea rned b ut ineff ec tive c ounsel

fai l to object in the tri al

court . Furthermore, appe l l ate r ev iew is mea

ni ngl es s b ec au se

wai ve r hasnow be en ex pa nd ed to i nc l ude the i ss ueof f ail ure of proo f b elow. So much for due pro cess.