THIRD DIVISION AUGUST 15, 2007 No. 1-05- 2481 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 04 CR 8865 ) SHEROME GRIFFIN, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) James B . Linn, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CEGR

EIM A N del i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fol l owi ng a j ury tria l , def endan t, Sherom e Gri f f i n, w as c onv

i cted of f i rst deg ree m urder,
arm ed rob bery , two counts of

aggra va ted ki dna ppi ng, a nd u nl awf ul use of a weap on by

a f elon. Defendan t was ultimatel

y sen tenced, as a r esult of a resentencin g hearin g, t o a t ot al of 42 y

ears’ im prisonm ent. On appeal , defen

dant contends that in

adm is si ble prior consi stent stat em ents m ade by the Stat e’s key witness were improp erly i ntro duced and used t o bo lster t he witness’s testi m ony . Def endan t addi tion al l y conten ds that his con

vi cti on an d senten ce f or arm ed rob bery m ust b e v aca

ted. Fi na l l y , def endan t argues that the State i m perm i ssi bl y ass erts th at the tri

al court
erred i n i m pos i ng con cu rrent s en ten ce s i n v i ol ati on of se cti on 5 -8- 4(a

)(i ) of the Un i f i ed Code of Correcti ons ( Code) (7 30 IL CS 5/5 -8-4(a )(i) (We st 2002 )). Br iefly s t at ed , t he ev ide nc e d emo nst r at ed t ha t , o n Fe br ua ry 17 , 20 02 , de fen da nt , his bro t her , And re , S her ro d Gu y and Ant onio Yo ung fo rc ed t he vict im, Walte r G ill s, a nd his you ng son i nto a va n a t gun poi nt. Th ey res trai ne d the v i cti m , a k now n d rug de al er, an d s tol e i tem s f rom his home and hi s m other’ s home , i

nc l udi ng two h andguns, cl

othi ng a nd v i deo gam e con sol es.1-05-2481

-2-

W hi l e i n h i s m othe r’ s g ara ge , th e v i cti m atte m pte d to f l ee , but was f

atal l y sh ot. The v i cti m ’s son was later found, unharmed. The reafter, Anthony

Thomas , defen

dant’s l ongtim e fri end, learned the detail s su

rround i ng th e i nc i den t and ev en tuall y contacted the

pol i ce. Th

oma s ag reed to we ar a hidden list ening de vice for t he po lice and t hen eng age d de fendant in a co nver sat ion r ega rd ing t he incident . D efenda nt was subs equ ent ly arre st ed a nd pr ovid ed a video t ape d st at ement co nfessing his involvement in the o ffense. Pr ior t o t rial, t he co ur t denied defend ant ’s mot ion t o s upp re ss t he vid eo t ap ed st at eme nt , find ing t ha t it wa s g ive n vo lu nt ar ily. At trial , Thomas testif

ie d that defenda

nt, defen dant’s b rot her, Guy

and Young arri

ved at hi s house around 10:30 p.m . on the night of the vi ctim ’s m urder. The men

in itial ly asked to speak to Thomas ’s b

rot her bec ause they

wanted hi

m to sell s ome i

tems that they

obtaine d because

they "h i t a l i ck, an

d *** h ad to l ay hi m down ,” m

ean i ng th ey robb ed an

d m urdere d som

eone . Thomas ’s b

rot her was n

ot home ; theref

ore, defendan

t asked Thomas to sell s ome of the s to le n me rchandi se, whi ch i ncl uded a telev

is ion, a radi

o, a Play Stat ion v ide o game console, two fur coats, clothes, a bulle

t-pro of ves

t, and two han

dguns, a .38-cal

ib er revolv

er and a .40-cal

ib er automatic. Def

endan t t hen expl ai ned that the m

en h ad forced the vi

ctim and h is son i nto a van at gunp oint , r est ra ined t he vict im with du ct t ape and p last ic zip t ies and hit him while demanding
mone y a nd drugs. The m

en sub sequentl

y drove the v

ictim to a house and a

garage, where they found drugs an

d to ok t he ab ove-listed items. Wh il e i n the garage, the vi

ctim tried to escape; therefore, defen

dant told Thomas tha

t he shot the vi ctim

twice wi th the revolv

er. Thomas admit t ed t hat he lat er so ld t he t wo handg uns, one of t he co at s and t he Play S t at ion. Thom as f ur th er testi f i ed th at, i n th e s pri n g of 20 03 , h e a

n d h i s b roth er weredri v i n g w i th1-05-2481

-3-

def endan t when they

pas sed an outdoor memoria

l pi cn i c. Th ey noti ced th

at the a ttende es w ere wearin g T-shi rts marked wi

th a pic ture o f the v

ictim, and def

endan t t old them

that t he m

an pictured was the in

div idua l that he had robbed a

nd m urdered. Tho mas ad dit ionally tes t ifi ed t hat , in lat e 20 03, while incarc er at ed fo r t wo pend ing off en ses of w hi ch he wasul tim atel y conv i cted, h i s ce l l mate wa s a f

ri end of the v i cti m . Thereaf ter, T homa s contacted detect iv es to discl ose what he kne

w about the vi ctim ’s m

urder because he f el t it was "the right thin

g to do.” Thomas sub sequentl y a greed to wear an
ea ve sd ropp i ng wi re to f urth er a ss i st i n th e i nv es ti ga ti on. A s a

res ul t, Thomaswa s r el

ea se d f rom ja il and partook in a consen

sual overhear on March

11, 2004. Under the pretense that he had be en pl ace d on h

ome moni torin g, Thom as e nga ged d ef endan t in a con versati on ab out the robbery and t he vict im’s murde r. The re aft er , T homas re t ur ned t o jail and d efenda nt was ar re st ed o ne we ek l ate r. A f ter h i s a rre st, de f en da n t wa s p l ac ed

i n a h ol di n g c el l wi th Thom as i n an ef f ort to obtain m ore inf ormation. Def

endan t, however, warned Thomas not t o say an

ythi ng an d the me n were even

tuall y s eparated. Thomas ul

tim ately served h is sentence by compl eting b oot cam

p. The tape of the consensual overhear was pub li

shed to the jury . On the tape, Thomas can be h eard say in g, "cause I know y

ou, you – I know for sure you told m e l ike , man, I murked [ sic ] dude with that m

ot her----in

g .38,” to whi

ch def endan t repli ed, "righ

t.” Defendan

t also stated that he di d not have a .40-cal

ib er automatic ha

ndgun b ut, rat her, that he "used that sh---i ng thi ng” beca use "[t ]ha t ’s [ what ] t he r evo lver [ is] fo r. ” T he t ape co nt ained a ddit ional st at ement s by Thomas regardin g hi s cel l m ate, t he f act that defendan

t t old hi m h e used the .38-calib er revolv er in the o ffense and t hat Tho mas so ld t he . 40- caliber a ut omat ic handg un.1-05-2481

-4-

Det ect ive James Wa shbur n t est ifi ed t hat defend ant was ar re st ed w itho ut incident on t he
mor ning o f Marc h 18, 200 4. At 1 1: 30 a .m. , a ppr oximat ely one ho ur aft er his arr est , d efenda nt was placed i

n an i nterview roo m an

d read his Mi

randa righ ts. Washb

urn then l eft to intervi

ew Guy, who had a lso be en ar re st ed t hat day. Guy eve nt ually agr eed t o g ive a video t ape d st at ement t hat evening. While Guy’s inte rview s we re ong oing , Wa shbur n moved defend ant into a ho lding cell wi th Thomas i

n an eff ort to gai n i nf ormation. Def

endan t was later returned to an in terview
r o o m wh er e h e h ad co nt inu o us co nt ac t wit h va r io us de t ec t ive s. At 10 :3 0 p
. m. , aft er ag ain advi sin g hi m of h is Mi randa righ ts, Washb urn i ntervi ewed def

endan t. Initial ly , defen dant deni ed h av i n g a n y kn owl ed ge of th e v i cti m ’s m ur der; h owev er , w

h en W ash b ur n con f ron ted h i m wi th fi ngerpri nt evi dence f ound on the vi

ctim ’s van, def

endan t responded that he merel y purch ased marijuana fr om t he vict im on t he da y in quest ion. Washbu rn su bseq uent ly played a po rt ion o f the
consens ual overhear tape, and def

endan t identifi ed hi s voi ce. He then desc rib ed what occurred, but de ni ed that he wasthe shooter. The i

nterv i ew con cl uded shortly there af ter; h owev er, Wa sh bur n l ater return

ed an d told def endan t that Guy

i den tif i ed de f endan t as the shooter. Defendant subseq uently confessed to bein g t he shoo ter and Washburn call ed an assistant St ate ’s At t o rn ey ( AS A) . W as hbu rn ad mitt ed t hat t he p o lice n eve r r ec o ver ed any p ro ce ed s fr o m t he t heft i n de f en da n t’s ap ar tmen t. ASA T imot hy Cart er t est ifi ed t hat he inte rview ed d efenda nt in Washbur n’s pr ese nce. The inter view last ed a ppr oximat ely 45 minut es, and a fte r it co nclude d, ASA Ca rt er spo ke t o d efenda nt alone a bout h i s treatm en t whi l e i n pol i ce custody . Def

endan t reported tha

t he w as trea

ted f i ne . Defe ndan t t hen chose to mem

orial iz e hi s statemen

t by v ide o. In the stat em

ent, which was1-05-2481

-5-

published t o t he jur y, de fendant re po rt ed t hat he, his bro t her , G uy and Y ou ng first app ro ache d t he victim because Yo ung want ed t o pu rchase dr ugs. All f our men eventuall

y entered t he victim’s
van and drove to his

apartment. Wh

il e i n route, Yo ung an

d the vi ctim got in to an argum

ent over drugs , so Guy

pl ace d duct tape ove

r the v i cti m ’smouth. The m

en f ound th e .38-c al i ber revolv

er, coats, video gam

es and a tel

evi si on in the apartmen

t. Ho wever, when

they did n ot fi nd cocai ne, the m en rem oved the d uct tape f rom th e vi cti m ’smouth an

d he i nf orme d them

that the drugs were at his mother’s h

ome. Def endan t po in ted the .38-cali

ber revol ver at the vi

ctim as the m en proc ee de d i

nto th e b as em en t of the vi cti m ’s mothe r’ s h ome. The vi cti m retr i eved coc ai ne f rom un de rne at h a mat t r es s a nd t he n br o ug ht t he m t o t he ga r ag e, wh er e mo r e c o ca ine an d a n a ss au lt rif l e w er e l oca ted . Th e v i cti m th en tried to f l ee . D ef en da n t wa rned h i m to s top r un n i n g, b ut, when the vi cti m ref us ed , h e w asf

orce d to s hoot. De f

en da nt f urth er s tate d that he s ol d s ome of the sto len goo ds to Thomas. T amik a T ur ne rt es t ified t ha t , at t he t ime o f t he o ffen se , she lived wit h t he vic t im and t he ir 11-month-old s on. Af

ter ret urni ng hom e from work, T urner l earned that the vi ctim had b een murdered an

d dis covered that her apartmen t had been

ransacked. Sh

e report ed that clothes, three coats, DV

Ds, the vi cti

m ’sha ndg un, two v i deo gam e con sol es a

nd v i deo gam es h ad b een taken
. Turner then i

dentif ie d two exhi

bi ts, her coat and a vi deo game cons ole, as i tems that had b een stolen. She f

urther test if

ie d that she did not know t hat the vi ctim was a drug dealer and den ie d repo rt ing to Washburn t hat $1 0,00 0 had been ta ken from underneat h a mattr ess in the victim ’s mother’s h

ome. Defend ant t est ifi

ed t hat t he vict im was kno wn as t he "[ s]t re et [p ]ha rmacist ” and Yo ung1-05-2481

-6-

and Guy sold drugs f

or him in the nei ghborhood. Defen

dant further stated that, o n Feb ruary 17, 2002, he purchas ed m

arij uana f rom the vi

ctim early in the day . A couple of

day s l ater, whil

e at Yo un g’ s ho us e, Yo un g a nd Gu y info r med de fen da nt t ha t t he y ro bbe d t he vic t im and kille d h im be ca us e they f ea red reta l i ati on. Th ey sta ted tha t the vi cti m wa s k i l l ed be ca us e h e w asnot "tr eat ing them right [by] not g ivi ng them a deal [o n drugs] .” Yo ung explain ed t hat t he victim’s
so n was pr ese nt when t hey ro bbed t he vict im, but t hat t he baby wa s no t har med. Defend ant further testif

ie d that Young asked hi

m to sell s ome of the s

to le n goods, and defe

ndan t admi tt ed that he sold the two handgun s and a v ide o game console. Defen dant, however, deni

ed sel li ng a f ur coat, aski

ng Th oma s to sel

l an y coat, or spe aki

ng to Thoma s on F ebruary 17, 200 2. Rath

er, defen dant stated t hat he contacted Charl es Thom as, Thomas ’s olde

r brother, and Charles assured defen dant that he would h

ave h is younge r brother sell

the han dguns an d the vi deo game cons ole. De f en da nt a ddi ti ona l l y tes ti f i ed tha t he wa s a rre ste d i n th e s pri ng of 200 3 i n c onn ec ti on with the v ictim ’s death. The pol

ic e accused h

im of m urderin g the vi ctim and told hi

m that they had finger pr int evid ence t o s upp or t t heir claim; ho weve r, aft er being plac ed in t wo lineups a nd hel d at a poli ce station f

or t wo days, def

endan t was releas ed. The n, o n Mar ch 18 , 2 004 , d efenda nt was aga in arr est ed. Washbu rn no t ifi ed d efenda nt t hat he had spo ken t o d efenda nt ’s br ot her , G uy and Y ou ng and all thr ee men ide nt ifi ed d efenda nt as the vi ctim ’s sh oot er. Defen

dant deni ed this and W ashb urn left the room, but returned periodi ca l l y th rou gh out th e day . A t so me p oi

n t, d ef en da n t wa s p l ac ed

i n a h ol di n g c el l wi th Th omas ; h

owe ve r, he di d n

ot sp ea k to Th omas . W as hb

urn the n took de f en da nt to a noth er r oom wher e he p layed t he t ape d co nver sat ion bet wee n himself and Tho mas. D efenda nt admit t ed t hat he1-05-2481

-7-

wa s s pe ak ing o n t he t ap e, bu t st at ed t ha t he wa s me r ely r ep ea t ing info rmat io n t ha t he pr ev io us ly learne d fro m Guy and Y ou ng in an effo rt t o impr ess T homas . D efenda nt t est ifi ed t hat all of t he statem en ts he made to Thoma s we

re f al se. D ef endan t adm i tted that he ev

en tuall y told W ash bur n t hat he wa s involved in the vict im’s murde r, but only beca use t he po lice thr eat ened his safet y and furt her t hre at ened t o c har ge his br ot her as t he sho ot er . As a re sult , d efenda nt t est ifi ed t hat he and Wa sh bur n de vised a story whi ch def endan t then repea ted to ASA

Carter. The j ury ul

tim ately found def

endan t guil ty of f irst degree m

urder, armed robbery

, two
coun ts of a ggrav ated ki dna ppi ng, a nd u nl awf ul use of a weap on by

a f elon. The j ury, however, f ound th at def endan t di d not disch

arge th e wea pon that proxi

matel y caus ed th e vi cti

m ’sdeath
. Defe ndan t was subsequen

tly sentence d to a 50-yea

r prison term

for the m urder count; a 28-year prison term

for the arm

ed robbery

charge; a 25-yea

r prison term

for each of

the aggravated ki dn appi n g c oun ts; an d a 7- yea r p ri son ter m f or th e u n l aw f ul -u se -of -a -w ea pon -by-a -f el on cou n t, al l to run concurrentl

y. F oll owing a resentenci

ng he arin g, defen dant’s f irst degree m

urder
se n ten ce wa s red uc ed to 42 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t an d h i s a rm ed rob b er y se n ten ce wa s red uc ed to 25 yea r s’ impr iso nme nt , wit h t he r ema ind er o f t he co un t s r ema ining un ch an ge d a nd all c o un t s s t ill runni ng concurrentl

y. Thi s tim el y a ppeal fol lowed. Defe ndan t fi rst contends that t he trial

court im properly in tro duced the consensual
ove rhe ar t ape bet wee n himself and Tho mas beca use it co nt ained he ar say, na mely, prio r c ons iste nt st at ement s, w hich impermissibly bolst er ed T homas ’s cr edibility as t he St at e’s w itnes s. D efenda nt
con ce de s th at he f ai l ed to pre serv e th

i s iss uef or ap pe al ; h owe ve r, he a rguestha t the pl ai n e rror rul e p erm i ts i ts re vi ew . The Sta

te re sp onds th

at d ef en da nt wai ve d re vi ew of thi s c l ai m an d c an not1-05-2481

-8-

dem onstrate plai

n error where the consen sual overhear tape was properly adm itted as nonh

earsay for t he st at ement s’ effect on t he liste ner and a s de fendant ’s ad op t ive admissio n. To pr ese rve an issue for app ellate re view, a de fendant must objec t at t rial and include t he i ssue i n a posttri al motion
. People v . Enoch , 122 Il l . 2d 176 , 186-8 7 (198 8). Des pi te f orfe i ture, a reviewi ng court may

consider an error under the pla in error r ule

when the trial evi dence was clos ely balanced or when t he er ro r is "s o s ubst ant ial that it affec t ed t he fund ament al fairness of t he proceedin g, and rem

edy in g the error is nece ssary

to preserve the i

ntegrity of the j udic ia

l process.” Pe o ple v. Ha ll , 194 Il

l . 2d 305 , 335 (2 000); see 134 Il l . 2d R. 6 15(a). Ap plic at io n o f t he pla in e rr o rrule as su mes t ha t an er r o ro cc ur r ed ; t he r efo r e, as a t hr es ho ld
matter, we m

ust determ

i ne wh ethe r the tri al court erred

i n adm i ttin g the cons en sua

l overh ear tap e. Th e d ete rm

i na ti on of whether e

vi de nc e i s adm

i ss i bl e is a que sti on w i thi n th e s oun d di screti on of the tri al court an d the deci sion wi l l not be overturn ed ab sen t an a bus e of that discre

tion
. Pe o ple
v. Williams , 181 Il

l . 2d 297 , 313 (1 998). The parties’ dis

pute over whether Thomas ’s statemen ts on the consensual

overhear tape
we r e h ea r sa y inco rr ec t ly as su mes t ha t su ch st at eme nt s a r e g en er ally c o nsid er ed he ar sa y. I t is w ell est ablished t hat a t ape d co nver sat ion o r r eco rd ing, w hich is ot her wise c omp et ent , mat er ial and relev ant, is a dmi ssi ble so long as

it i s authenticated and sh own to be reliabl

e through proper f ounda tion
. People v . Harvey, 95 Ill . App. 3d 992, 1004-05 (1981), citing Be l f i el d v . Coop , 8 I ll. 2d 2 93 ( 195 6). Mor eover, con trar y to the pa rti es ’ a ss um ption, a ta pe d c onv ers ati on i s n ot
co nsider ed he ar say; inst ead , it is tr eat ed a s a mecha nical eave sdr op per wit h an ident ity o f its o wn, sep arate a nd a part f rom th e v oic es re corded. Harvey , 95 Ill . App. 3d at 1005.1-05-2481

-9-

Defend ant do es no t co nt est t he co mpet ency, re levance , r eliabili t y or aut hent icity o f the
co nse nsu al o ve rhe ar t ap e. On t he co nt r ar y, t he r ec o r d d emo nst r at es t ha t de fen da nt r ep ea t ed ly ide ntif ie d hi s voi ce as one of the s peakers on the tape. Moreo ver, the record also dem onstrates that defenda

nt did n ot obje ct to the publ

ic ation of the cons ensual

overhear tape; rather, the parties agreed to st ipul

ate to the accuracy

of the accom

pany in g transcript of the conv

ersation, whi

ch was also ent er ed int o e vidence . Ac co rd ingly, we find t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t er r in ad mitt ing t he tape. Consequently

, defen dant has wai

ved revi ew of thi s i ssue. Defendan t next co ntends that his armed robbery convicti on is a l

esser-incl uded offense th at m us t b e v ac ate d, a l on g w i th th e acc om

pa n y i n g s en ten ce , b ec au se

i t se rv ed as a p re di ca te to hi s f el ony m urder c onv

i cti on. De f en da nt a gai n c onc ed estha

t he f ai l ed to pre serv e th

i s iss uef or appeal ; however, he argues that the pla in error r ule

appl ie s. The State ini

tial ly responds that defen dant wai ved revi ew of thi s i ssue. In the al ternative, the State argues that defen dant’s arm

ed robb ery conv i cti on wa s prope

r. Despi te waiver, we revi ew the m erits of def

endan t’s cl ai m f or plai n error because i

t relates to hi s sen tence and the " im

positi on of an un

authorized sen

tence af fects sub stantial

righ ts.” Pe o ple v. Hi cks , 1 81 I ll. 2d 5 41, 544 -4 5 ( 199 8) . P ur sua nt t o t he "o ne go od co unt ” r ule anno unce d by t he su pr eme co ur t in Peo ple v. Car do na , 1 58 I ll. 2d 4 03 ( 199 4) , " when a n indict ment c ont ains several counts arisi

ng out o f a s in

gle transaction an

d a general

verdict is returned, the ef fect i s that the defe ndan t is gui lty as charged i

n each count to whi

ch the proof i s appl

ic abl e.” Car do na , 158 I ll. 2 d a t 41 1. Fu r t he r , "w he n mu lt iple co nvic t io ns a r e o bt ain ed fo ro ffen se s a r ising o ut o f a s ing le act, [a] sentence i s i

mposed on the m

ost serious off

ense.” Car do na , 158 Ill . 2d at 411.1-05-2481

-10-

In the case at ba

r, the Stat e charged def

endan t with f irst degree m

urder based on three theor ies, i ntentional m

urder ( 720 ILCS 5/9 -1(a) (1) (West 2002)) , knowing m urder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2002) and fel ony m urder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2002)). Wi thout objec t ion, t he jur y was g iven a ge ner al verd ict fo rm and t hen r et ur ned t he fo rm ge ner ally, finding defen dant guil ty of f irst degree m

urder. The evidence prese nted at tr ia

l was appl ic abl e to all three t heo ries; t her efo re , t he mos t ser iou s first deg re e mur der char ge, intent ional mur der , w as t he proper basis

for sentenc in

g. See Pe o ple v. Sa mple , 326 Ill . App. 3d 914, 929 (2001) (fi ndi ng that
arm ed rob bery conv i cti on an d f i rst deg ree m urder c onv

i cti on b ase d on m

ost seri ous the ory ch arge d w er e b oth

pr oper w h er e j ur y re tur n ed gen er al v erdi ct f orm an d ev i den ce

su pp orte d b oth murder theor ies, i

ntentional an

d fel ony m urder) . Consequent ly

, although armed robbery i s a l ess er-i nc l uded off en se of f elony m urder, i t is not a l ess er-i nc l uded off en se of i nten tion al m urder. See Sa mple , 3 26 I ll. App. 3d a t 929 . Ac co rd ingly, defend ant ’s ar med r obbe ry co nvictio n and
sen tenc e wer e proper . We are n ot persuaded by

defen dant’s argum

ent that, because a ve

rdict was returned f i ndi ng th at he di d not person al

l y di sch arge th e f i rearm caus i ng th e vi cti m ’sdeath , the j ury ne ce ss ari l y f oun d h i m gui l ty of f el ony m urder a nd not i nte nti ona l or kn owi ng m urder. It i s n

ot th i s c our t’s f un cti on to en ter th e m i n dsof th e j ur ors . M ore ov er , the j ur y ’s v erdi ct is e n ti tl ed to gr eat defer ence and w e find t hat t he su pr eme co ur t ’s firmly est ablished r ule t hat a de fendant
ca nn ot "c ha l l en gecon vi cti ons on th e s ol e b as i s th

at they are l eg al l y i nc ons i stent w

i th a cq ui ttal s on other ch arges ” si m i l arl y appl i es to this cl

ai m . People v . Jones , 207 Il l . 2d 122 , 133-3 4 (200 3). Fu rther more , w e r es

pe ctf ul l y f i n d th at Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 372 Il l . Ap p. 3d 76 2 (200 7), a1-05-2481

-11-

cas e r elied up on by de fendant , is nar ro wly li mited by its fact s, w hich are dist inguishable fr om t he
cas e at bar . T he de fendant in Sm i th was simi larly char ged wit h intent ional, kno wing and felony
m urder a nd th e j ury returned a g eneral

gui l ty v erdi ct f orm. Sm i th , 372 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 765. Ho weve r, unlike o ur defend ant , t he de fendant in Sm i th req ue ste d a se pa rate ve rdi ct f orm f or felony murd er at bot h t he infor mal and fo rmal inst ru ct ion co nfere nces and a lso includ ed t he argum en t in a m otion f or new tria l
. Sm i th , 372 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 765. Al l

of h i s req ues ts were ult imately denied and t he low er co ur t issued co nsec ut ive sent ence s for intent ional mur der and
arm ed rob bery . Sm i th , 372 Il l . Ap p. 3d 76 5-66. O n a

ppea l , the f ourth di vision of thi s court
con cl ude d that the tri

al cou rt er red when i t f ai l ed to gra nt th e d ef en da nt’ s r ep ea ted req ue sts f or sep arate v

erdi ct f orms and theref

ore m odi f i ed h i s se nten ces to run con

currentl y . Sm i th , 37 2 I ll. A pp . 3d at 7 71 -7 2. E ss en

ti al to i ts d ete rm i n ati on wa s th e f ac t th at th

e l owe r c our t’s f ai l ur e to giv e the requested separate verdi ct forms m ay have contributed to t he ul tim ate sentence b ecause a finding of felo ny murde r p re dicat ed o n ar med r obbe ry wo uld have pr event ed c ons ecu t ive
sen tenc es. Sm

i th , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 768-72. Here, t here i s no evi dence that def

endan t requested separate verdi ct forms or even obje cted to the general

form s. Moreover, t he trial court im posed concurrent sentences ; theref ore, t he f ear at the heart of the Sm i th ca se di d n o t ex ist
. Ac co r di ng ly, we f i nd th at def endan t’s a rmed rob bery conv i cti on wa s prope

r. Fi nal ly , the Stat e contends that the trial court erred in

im posin g concurrent sentences wh er e s ec t io n 5
- 8- 4( a) ( i) o f t he Un ified Co de o f Co rr ec t io ns ( Co de ) ( 73 0 I LC S 5 /5
- 8- 4( a) ( i) ( We st 20 02 ) ) r eq ui r ed co ns ec ut ive se nt en ce s fo rat lea st so me o f his co nvi ct io ns . Co ns eq ue nt ly, the Stat e requests that we reman d this case f or a new sentenc in

g heari ng. Def endan t responds1-05-2481

1 Th i s v er si on of th e statu te b ec om e e f f ec ti v e on Ja n ua ry 1, 2 00 0. Prior to th

e a men dm en t, fi rst degree murder was n

ot a triggeri

ng off ense. See Carney

, 327 Ill . App. 3d at 1001 n.1. -12- that the State can not ass ert such a

reque st be caus e i

t does n ot have the

ri ght to cross -appe al . In the al ternative, def

endan t argues that co nsecuti

ve sen tences were n

ot ma ndatory bec ause the trial court fai le d to satisf

y the requis ite el

em ents of section 5-8-4(a)(i) of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5-8- 4(a)(i ) (We st 2002 )). At the outset , we note t hat we need n ot review whether the State has the ri ght to appeal defen dant’s sen tence beca

use "[t]he appel

la te court ha[s] the authority to correct [a] sentence at any tim e.” Pe o ple v. Ha rr is , 20 3 I l l . 2d 11 1, 1 18 (2 00 3) . If

we con cl ud e th at th e r eq ui si te el em en ts o f se cti on 5- 8- 4( a) (i

) of th e C ode (7 30 IL CS 5/ 5- 8- 4( a) (i

) (W est 20 02 )) w er e m

et, de f en da nt’ s curren

t sente nc e wi l l be voi d f or f ai l i ng to conf orm wi th th e m an da tory l an gua geof the statute. Ha rr is , 20 3 Il l . 2d at 1 18 ( where the sente nc e i s i nv al i d, a rev i ew i ng cou rt i s n ot ba rre d by the "ru l esl i m i ti ng the State ’s righ t to app eal

an d pr ohi bi ti ng the appe al cou rt f rom increasing a defendant’s sentence o n review”). We, ther efore, review the merits o f the St ate ’s cla im. The st at ut e at issue s t at es t hat a co ur t shall im po se c ons ecu t ive sent ence s if "one of t he offenses for whi ch defen

dant was co nvi

cted was first degree murder o r a Class X or Class 1 f elony and the def endan t in f l i cted s ev ere b odi l

y i nj ury .” 730ILCS 5/5-8- 4(a)(i ) (We st 2002 ). Th ere f ore, f i rs t de gre e m

urder or an y Cl as s X or Cl as s 1 f el ony ac ts a s a "tri gge ri ng ” of f en se f or t he impos itio n of c ons ecu t ive sent ence s if the d efenda nt infl icte d se ver e bo dily i

njury du ring t he
comm is si on of the off

ense. 1 People v . Carney, 327 Il l . Ap p. 3d 99 8, 1001 n.1 ( 2002) . A c ourt1-05-2481

-13-

ne ed no t de t er mine " wh et he rt he ac t io ns a r o se fr o m se pa r at e c o ur se s o f co nd uc t o ra s ing le
course of c onduc

t” i n orde r to is sue cons ecuti

ve sen tenc es. Ha rr is , 203 Ill . 2d at 116. In t he inst ant cas e, defend ant was co nvicte d o f fi rst deg re e mur der , a rmed ro bber y and two co unts of aggrava

ted kidna ppin g, all of whi ch are triggeri

ng off enses . See 720 ILCS 5/5-9- 1(a) (1) , 5- 18-2 (a), 5-10 -2( a)(6 ), 5 -10- 2(a) (2) (West 2002) . The ac ts su ppo rt ing defendant’s convi ctions were com

mi tt ed agai nst one i ndi vi dual , with the ex

ception of one of

the aggravated ki dna ppi ng c ounts, a

nd th e vi cti m ’sdeath clearl y constitutes

sev ere b odi l y i nj ury . Peo ple v. Causey , 3 41 I ll. App 3 d 75 9, 772 (2 003 ) ( "t he de at h of t he vict im of a t rigg er ing o ffense ca n be t he ba sis fo ra fin din g o f se ve r e b o dily inju ry”)
. We , t he r efo r e, find t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in im posin g concurrent sentences

in violation of

the statut e. Acco rd ingly, we a ffi

rm de fendant ’s co nvictio ns but vaca t e t he impos itio n of c onc ur re nt
se n ten ce s a n d r em an d th i s c as e s ol el

y f or th e i m pos i ti on of con se cu ti v e s en ten ce s pur suan

t to section 5-8-4(a)(i) of

the Code. Af fi rmed i n part and va

cated in part; cause rem

anded. KA RNEZ IS, J., a

nd C UNNIN GHA

M, J., c oncu

r.