2023 IL App (1st) 22-0579-U

Order filed: April 20, 2023

FIRST DISTRICT

FOURTH DIVISION

No. 1-22-0579

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Hoffman and Martin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held : We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file a second

successive postconviction petition for failure to establish prejudice. The sentencing

court gave insignificant weight to two prior AUUW convictions that were later

vacated and greater sentence s did not result.

¶ 2 Defendant

- ap pellant, Emmanuel Ware, appeals from the denial of his motion for leave to

file a second successive postconviction petition under the Post -Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725

ILCS 122-1 et seq. (West 2020)). On appeal, defendant contends that he established cause and

prejudice where the trial court, in sentencing defendant, relied on two convictions for aggravated

unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) that were later vacated as unconstitutional. We affirm. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

EMMANUEL WARE,

Defendant -Appellant. Appeal from th e

Circuit Court of

Cook County.

No. 09 CR 13639

Honorable

Mary Margaret Brosnahan,

Judge, presiding. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)No. 1-22-0579

2 ¶ 3 In defendant’s direct appeal, we set forth a detailed backg round of this case. See People v.

Ware , 2014 IL App (1st) 120485. We present only those facts which are relevant to this appeal

including a detailed recitation of the sentencing hearing.

¶ 4 Defendant and codefendant, Anthony Johnson, were tried by a jury on various charges

including six counts of armed robbery with a firearm. At trial, the evidence established that, on

July 10, 2009, at around 7 p.m., defendant and codefendant

, armed with guns, entered a crowded

barber and beauty salon (salon). Defendant point ed his gun at a customer and ordered everyone

else present to get down on the floor and give up their belongings. Complying with defendant’s

commands, codefendant collected property and money from six individuals in the salon. During

the incident, a woman with a young boy approached the salon. Defendant pulled the boy into the

salon

, separating the child from the woman. The jurors viewed a surveillance video depicting the

incident. They found defendant guilty on the six counts of armed robbery with a firearm.

¶ 5 Defendant’s convictions for armed robbery with a firearm in violation of section 18- 2(a)(2)

of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/18- 2(a)(1) (West 2008 )) and as a C lass X

offense, carried a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Id. § 18-2(b); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-

1(a)(3) (West 2012 ). D efendant was also subject to a mandatory firearm enhancement of 15 years’

imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(b) (West 2012 ). A Class X offense is subject to an enhancement

if

a defendant has a prior Class X conviction. See 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(b)(1) (West 2012 ). The trial

court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences where there is a need “to protect the public

from further criminal conduct.” Id. § 5-8- 4(c)(1).

¶ 6 After denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial court held a sentencing hearing.

The evidence as to defendant’s criminal history, including the presentence investigation report

(PSI), showed that he had two juvenile convictions (possession of controlled substances andNo. 1-22-0579

3 trespass to vehicle) and four adult convictions. The adult convictions were for AUUW in 2003,

AUUW in 2004, aggravated kidnapping with a firearm in 2006, and possession of cannabis in

2009. Defendant r eceived a sentence of 78 months on the aggravated kidnapping conviction and

was on parole when he committed the six armed robberies.

¶ 7 The State presented evidence as to the circumstances surrounding defendant’s aggravated

kidnapping conviction through the testimony of the investigating/arresting police officers. On

September 3, 2005, defendant was one of three individuals, two armed with handguns, who forced

the victim out of his automobile. The offenders took the victim’s jewelry and then forced him into

another vehicle

. Defendant was in the back seat with the victim while another offender drove this

vehicle away. The third offender fled with the victim’s automobile. The police later stopped the

vehicl e occupied by defendant and the victim for erratic drivi ng. The police discovered defendant

and the victim struggling over defendant’s handgun in the back seat. After the gun discharged,

defendant stuck his arm through the car window and dropped the gun onto the sidewalk.

¶ 8 In discussing the armed robbery convictions, the State stressed that the six victims testified

at trial to being “terrorized” from the moment defendant and co -defendant entered the salon. The

salon was crowded with both adults and children. Defendant “drag ged” a young boy into the salon

and threw him to the ground. The witnesses testified that defendant “was the one calling all the

shots” during the armed robberies. The State asserted that defendant hides behind a gun and

victimizes people and takes their belongings. The State also argued that defendant had “two gun

convictions and then he uses the gun *** to kidnap somebody and take their car.” The State urged

the court to impose a sentence “much higher than the minimum” as he had committed acts of terror

against the victims in the salon.No. 1-22-0579

4 ¶ 9 In mitigation, defense counsel argued that defendant was young and “[h]opefully he’ll learn

something through this trial,” and defendant’s mother and his sister had been in court every day.

Defense counsel said that “thank fully” no one was injured during the armed robberies. Defendant

chose not to speak in allocution.

¶ 10 Before announcing defendant’s sentence, the trial court stated that it would consider the

statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1, 3.2 (West 2012) ), the

arguments, the testimony, and the PSI. The court began by addressing each statutory factor in

mitigation.

¶ 11 First, the court considered whether defendant’s conduct neither caused nor threatened

serious physical harm and found:

“short of murder I can’t think of anything else that could have been a more horrific set of

circumstances to go through than what all of the victims endured in this case. People are in

after work. There was many, many people in there, as evidenced on the videotape and

certainly the videotape was chilling, chilling to watch from the moment it started as you

saw [defendant and codefendant] walking down the hallway about to enter until they left

and the case was over, chilling how it showed what each and every one of these folks went

through at the [salon] .”

¶ 12 In considering wheth er defendant contemplated that his criminal conduct would cause or

threaten serious physical harm, the court recognized that he and codefendant brought guns into a

public place “to hold all of those individuals, including children, hostage, laid them down on the

ground, and had them give their money, their purses, and their jewelry into the Santa Claus sack

the codefendant was carrying.” The court concluded that defendant “very much contemplated that

his actions were going to cause or possibly cause serious physical harm .”No. 1-22-0579

5 ¶ 13 In finding that defendant’s conduct was not induced or facilitated by somebody other than

him, the court found that defendant was the “ringleader,” “the guy at the door, he’s ordering around

his codefendant to make sure that the codefendant doesn’t miss anything. He’s the guy that tells

everybody you know what’s up, you know why we’re here. Get down on the ground. So it’s the

defendant who out of the two, both equally guilty, both with guns but the defendant out of the two

of them was more of the leader. ”

¶ 14 When reviewing whether defendant’s criminal conduct was the result of circumstances

unlikely to recur, the court stated that “defendant has shown time and time and time again that not

only does he commit crimes , but all of his crimes are crimes with guns and they’ve escalated up

to the current felony.” The court believed defendant’s conduct would “very likely” reoccur “just

like it has four separate times.” The court went on to find “significant” that defendant was on

parole for the aggravated kidnapping conviction when he committed the armed robberies.

¶ 15 As to the other statutory factors in mitigation, the court found there was no evidence to

show that defendant was acting under a strong provocation, there were substantial grounds tending

to justify or excu se defendant’s conduct, defendant or the victims were compensated, defendant

had led a law -abiding life for a substantial period of time, defendant had a medical condition, or

defendant would be unlikely to commit these crimes again. The court did note that defendant’s

family would “have a hardship” upon his imprisonment but did not indicate that the hardship would

be “excessive” as set forth in the statute . 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1(a)(11) (West 2012).

¶ 16 The court then con sidered the statutory aggravation factors and again found that

defendant’s conduct during the armed robberies caused or threatened serious physical harm.

¶ 17 In reviewing defendant’s criminal history, the court stated that defendant had a juvenile

background and two convictions for AU UW. The court, ho wever, discussed in detail theNo. 1-22-0579

6 aggravated kidnapping conviction and found those facts also to be “chilling,” stating: “There’s this

guy who is abducted off the street, his jewelry taken, he’s forced into another car, he’s in the back

seat with the defendan t who has a gun ***. In a one in a million scenario there just happens to be

a uniformed policeman behind him observing *** a car swerving around in the day so he goes to

pull it over and lo and behold there’s a big struggle in the back seat between the de fendan t *** and

the vict im ** and the weapon discharges and thankfully doesn’t kill anyone ***.” The court

emphasized that defendant was sentenced on the aggravated kidnapping conviction to “six months

over the minimum” and “after barely getting out of the penitentiary he commits this offense.”

¶ 18 The trial court then examined the serious nature of defendant’s conduct during the armed

robberies, a discussion which covers over four pages of the transcript. The court described the

salon as “bustling” and crowded with adults and children. The court also described each of the six

armed robbery victims and the “nightmare” of their ordeals. On entering the salon, defendant

immediately pulled a gun “and [put] it to the head” of a customer in the first chair and ordere d

everyone else to get down on the floor. Defendant encouraged “an unsuspecting mom” with her

little boy to enter the salon. D efendant dragged the boy into the salon, making the boy “yet another

victim.” Defendant directed the co -defendant to take “every drop of cash, every drop of jewelry

that any of these folks had as they’re laying on the floor.” The court found that the offenses were

“were well -planned out, not a spur of the moment thing whatsoever” and added that defendant was

armed with a gun “for tim e number 4.”

¶ 19 The court emphas ized defendant faced sentencing for six separate verdicts of guilty for six

separate victims on the felony offense of armed robbery with a potential minimum sentence of 21

years on each count “if [defendant] didn’t have one mis demeanor in his background.” Here the

trial court said defendant’s “history of guns, his history of violence is very predictive of what heNo. 1-22-0579

7 is all about. In this particular case I’ve considered, as I said, all of the facts very, very carefully.

The defendan t in my view is eligible for and deserves nothing other than an extended term

sentence.”

¶ 20 Having found that defendant was eligible for an extended term based on the aggravated

kidnapping conviction, the trial court sentenced him to six terms of 50 years, in cluding the 15- year

mandatory firearm enhancement and a five- year extended term. The court stated that consecutive

sentences on each of the armed robbery counts would be possible based on a finding that it was

necessary to protect the public from the actio ns of defendant but in light of the extended sentence s,

concurrent sentences would be imposed.

¶ 21 The trial court denied defense counsel’s oral motion and written motion to reconsider

defendant’s sentence s.

¶ 22 On January 26, 2012, defendant filed a direct appeal to this court and as pertinent here

challenged his sentences and sought a new sentencing hearing on two grounds. First , defendant

argued the trial court erred in finding that he was subject to extended term sentence s because he

did not have a prior Class X felony conviction. Ware , 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 28. According

to the records of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) , the aggravated kidnapping

conviction was a Class 2 and not a Class X felony. The St ate agreed and we affirmed defendant’s

convictions but held that he was not extended

- term eligible. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.

¶ 23 However, we rejected defendant’s request to remand for resentencing on this basis as it

was clear from the record that the trial court intended to impose the maximum available sentence s.

Id. ¶ 30-32. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(4) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967), we reduced

defendant’s sentences to the maximum non- extended term sentence s of 45 years, which included

the mandatory 15- year e nhancement. Ware , 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 32.No. 1-22-0579

8 ¶ 24 Second, defendant argued his case should be remanded for resentencing so the trial court

could determine whether his previous AUUW convictions were void as unconstitutional under

People v. Aguilar , 2013 IL 112116, which was decided during the pendency of his direct appeal.

Ware , 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 33. In Aguilar

, as clarified in People v Burns , 2015 IL 117387,

our supreme court found section 24- 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) of the AUUW statute was unconstitutional

on its face in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const.,

amend. II)

. In Ware , the record did not include evidence as to whether defendant’s convictions

were based on the facially unconstitutional statutory provisions. 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 33-

34. We concluded that we lacked appellate jurisdiction to review whether the prior convictions

were void under Aguilar

. Id. Further, we found that even if defendant’s prior AUUW convictions

were void, we would not be required to remand for resentencing where the convictions had an

insignificant impact on the sentencing. Id. ¶ 35. We reasoned:

“The trial court carefully considered defendant's sentences in light of all matters in

aggravation and mitigation. The two prior convictions for AUUW certainly were

mentioned as part of defendant's criminal background. Having reviewed the transcript of

pro ceedings from the sentencing hearing, we conclude the trial court placed little emphasis

on the prior AUUW convictions. The trial court was most concerned with the

circumstances surrounding the six armed robberies at hand and the wanton nature of

defendant's prior kidnapping conviction involving a firearm, which has not been challenged

as void.” Id. ¶ 36 (citing People v. Burge , 254 Ill.App.3d 85, 91, 193 Ill. Dec. 310, 626

N.E.2d 343 (1993) (“When the weight placed on an improperly considered aggravating

f

actor is so insignificant that it did not lead to a greater sentence, a remand for resentencing

is not required.”)). ” Id. ¶ 36.No. 1-22-0579

9 ¶ 25 On January 25, 2015, defendant filed a pro se initial postconviction petition alleging

various claims of trial court error and i neffectiveness of counsel which were unrelated to his

sentencing. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and we affirmed that decision. People

v. Ware , 2018 IL App (1st) 152811- U.

¶ 26 In 2017, pursuant to defendant’s section 2-1401 petition, the tri al court vacated his two

AUUW convictions based on Aguilar , 2013 IL 112116.

¶ 27 Subsequently, our Supreme Court, held that because a conviction under the provisions

found unconstitutional in Aguilar is void ab initio

, “the conviction must be treated by the cou rts

as if it did not exist, and it cannot be used for any purpose under any circumstances.” In re N.G.

,

2018 IL 121939, ¶ 36. The supreme court made clear that “if the constitutional infirmity is put in

issue during a proceeding that is pending before a co urt, the court has an independent duty to

vacate the void judgment and may do so sua sponte .” Id. ¶ 57.

¶ 28 In 2021, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to correct the mittimus to reflect our

order reducing defendant’s sentence to 45 years’ imprisonment as to each count of armed robbery.

¶ 29 On June 23, 2021, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction

petition which alleged that his “50

- year sentence” for armed robbery was unconstitutional as

applied to him because it was extended based on the now vacated convictions for AU UW. On

August 27, 2021, the trial court denied defendant leave to file the successive postconviction

petition finding that defendant had raised a challenge to his extended term on direct appeal and

therefore res judicata applied.

¶ 30 Defendant, on September 23, 2021, filed a motion for leave to file a second successive

postconviction petition contending that the trial court, in sentencing defendant, improperly relied

on defendant’s prior unconstitutional convictions for AUUW in aggravation. Citing People vNo. 1-22-0579

10 Bourke , 96 Ill . 2d 327 (1983), the trial court found that its consideration of the AUUW convictions

“was slight in comparison to the other aggravating factors considered” and denied defendant ’s

motion as he did not show prejudice. Def endant appeals.

¶ 31 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying him leave to file his second successive

postconviction petition with a claim that the trial court erred in relying on his void AUUW

convictions in aggravation as he had established caus e and prejudice. As to cause, defendant

argued that he could not have raised this claim until the AUUW convictions were vacated as void.

Defendant maintains that he showed prejudice as the trial court gave “more than [a] little” weight

to the AUUW convictions and that in any event, the case law now requires resentencing if there

was any consideration given to a void conviction.

¶ 32 The Act provides a method where defendants may collaterally attack their convictions or

sentences on constitutional grounds. People v. Tate , 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 8; 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et

seq. (West 2020). The Act generally contemplates the filing of only one postconviction petition.

People v. Ortiz , 235 Ill. 2d 319, 328 (2009); 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2020). To file a successive

postconviction petition, a defendant must first obtain leave of court. 725 ILCS 5/122- 1(f) (West

2020). “Only when fundamental fairness so requires will the strict application of this statutory bar

be relaxed.” People v. Pitsonbarger , 205 Ill. 2d 444, 456 (2002). The bar against successive

proceedings is relaxed where the defendant can establish (1) cause and prejudice for failing to raise

the claim earlier, or (2) actual innocence. 725 ILCS 5/122- 1(f) (West 2020); People v. Edwards

,

2012 IL 111711, ¶¶ 22-23. Here, as discussed, defendant asserts that he has satisfied the cause

and -prejudice test.

¶ 33 A defendant need only se t out a prima facie case at the leave

- to

- file stage. People v. Bailey

,

2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24. “It is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate both cause and prejudice forNo. 1-22-0579

11 each claim raised in his successive petition.” People v. Thompson , 383 Ill. App. 3d 924, 929

(2008). Cause c onstitutes an objective factor that impeded the defendant’s ability to raise a specific

claim during his initial postconviction proceedings, and prejudice exists when the alleged error so

infected the trial that the resulting sentence violated due process. Bailey , 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 15;

725 ILCS 5/122- 1(f) (West 2020).

¶ 34 “[A] defendant’s pro se motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition will

meet the section 122- 1(f) cause and prejudice requirements if the motion adequately alleges facts

dem onstrating cause and prejudice.” People v. Smith , 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 33. Leave to file a

successive postconviction petition “should be denied when it is clear, from a review of the

successive petition and the documentation submitted by the petitioner, that the claims alleged by

the petition fail as a matter of law or where the successive petition with supporting documentation

is insufficient to justify further proceedings.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. We review a trial

court’s ruling on a motion for le ave to file a successive postconviction petition de novo

. Id. ¶ 13.

¶ 35 We first rev iew defendant’s claim that he adequately alleged prejudice where the trial court

consider ed his AUUW convictions that were later declared unconstitutional.

¶ 36 The sentencing deci sion of a trial court is given great deference ( People v. Alexander , 239

Ill. 2d 205, 212 (2010)) but where the court relies upon improper sentencing factors, the matter

may be remanded for resentencing ( People v. Hearring , 2022 IL App (1st) 192064, ¶ 34).

However, not every sentencing error requires a new sentencing hearing; we will affirm the

sentence if the weight placed on the improperly considered aggravating factor was so insignificant

that it did not result in a greater sentence. Bourke , 96 Ill 2d at 332. “ Where, [despite a sentencing

error, ] a defendant ‘would have received the same sentence, ’ remandment is not required.” People

v. Chromik , 408 Ill App 3d 1028, 1050 (2011) (quoting People v. Bohlander , 225 Ill. App. 3dNo. 1-22-0579

12 1055, 1058 (1992)). In co nsidering whether reversible error occurred, “the reviewing court should

not focus on a few words or statements of the trial court,” but should make its decision “by

considering the entire record as a whole.” People v. Ward , 113 Ill. 2d 516, 526, 27 (1986).

¶ 37 In denying defendant’s motion to file a second successive postconviction petition, the trial

court found that defendant had not shown prejudice as the AUUW convictions were given “slight”

consideration at sentencing. When the entire record is viewed as a whole, we agree that the weight

given the AUUW was insubstantial and did not result in a greater sentence.

¶ 38 The trial court in framing its sentence s carefully and in great detail considered the statutory

factors in mitigation and aggravation. The court rec ognized that defendant’s family would suffer

hardship upon his incarceration, but otherwise found that not one statutory factor in mitigation

applied, a finding consistent with the evidence as a whole. And defendant argued little in

mitigation, only that d efendant was young (age 23) at the time of the crime, “hopefully” learned

important lessons from the trial, “thankfully” no one was hurt, and members of his family had been

in court throughout the case.

¶ 39 In examining the aggravation factor s , the trial cour t did refer to the AUUW convictions

when speaking about defendant’s history of gun violations and again when finding defendant

lacked a potential for rehabilitation. The court however relied most heavily on the aggravated

kidnapping conviction and the chil ling circumstances of that crime as the most significant part of

defendant’s prior criminal history. Additionally, the court placed great weight on the fact that

defendant committed the armed robberies while on parole for the aggravated kidnapping

conviction in concluding that his criminal conduct was likely to recur.

¶ 40 It is clear that defendant’s heinous conduct during the armed robberies was the central

reason for the court’s sentences. The trial court found that defendant and codefendant carefullyNo. 1-22-0579

13 planned the armed robberies, chose a time when the salon would be crowded, and were armed with

guns. The court declared defendant as the ringleader who held a gun to one customer’s head while

directing codefendant to take every item of jewelry and cash from the victims. Defendant dragged

a child into the salon thereby putting the child in danger. The court had concerns that defendant

went from committing a vicious kidnapping of one victim to robbing six v ictims and holding many

others hostage while again armed with a firearm and “barely out of the penitentiary.”

¶ 41 We also conclude that based on the record as a whole, the references to the AUUW

convictions did not result in greater sentences. Defendant’s ini tial sentence on each of the six

armed robbery counts was 30 years plus the mandatory 15- year firearm enhancement and the

erroneous 5- year extended term. The trial court in framing the sentences stated that sentences near

the minimum of the relevant sentencing scale for armed robbery would not be appropriate. The

trial court reasoned that defendant had received a sentence on the aggravated kidnapping of just

six months above the minimum and went on to commit these six armed robberies while on parole

from th at sentence. After finding extended sentences appropriate, the trial court chose not to

consider consecutive sentences on the six armed robbery convictions an d, instead

, made the six

sentences concurrent. We find the trial court would not have entered less er sentence s for the armed

robbery convictions had there been no reference to the void AUUW convictions.

¶ 42 Defendant assert s that after In re N.G. , 2018 IL 121939, courts of review do not apply the

standard set out in Bourke in determining whether a defendant must be resentenced where a trial

court considered a void conviction. Citing Hearring , 2022 IL App (1st) 192064, defendant argues

that a new sentencing is required if a void conviction was given “any” consideration or weight. In

Hearring , the State argued in aggravation at sentencing that the defendant had nine felony

convictions, but the defendant actually had only seven prior felony convictions. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. TwoNo. 1-22-0579

14 of the defendant’s prior convictions were for AUUW

. Id. ¶ 32. The court’s sentencing decis ion

covered only “four short paragraphs” in the transcript of the proceedings and included the court’s

statement that the defendant had nine felony convictions. Id. ¶ 33. On direct appeal, the appellate

court vacated the two AUUW convictions as void under Aguilar and then considered whether the

matter should be remanded for resentencing. Id. ¶ 26. The appellate court found that from the

record it “[had] no way to know for certain exactly how much the two void convictions and the

resulting erroneous number of convictions affected the trial court’s sentencing decision.” Id. ¶34.

Because the trial court in sentencing the defendant repeated the State’s misrepresentation as to the

number of felony convictions and two of those felony convictions were vacated as void on direct

appeal, the appellate court found that the defendant should be resentenced. Id.

¶ 43 We disagree that the decision in Hearring holds that resentencing is necessary if a void

conviction was given any weight or consideration during the sentencing. The Hearring court held

it was unsure from the record what e ffect both improper factors

— two void convictions and the

misconce ption as to the number of prior felony convictions— had on the defendant’s sentence. We

also disagree that Hearring departs from Bourke

. While our supreme court in Bourke held that

resentencing is not required where an improper sentencing factor had insubst antial weight and did

not result in a greater sentence, it also held that “where the reviewing court is unable to determine

the weight given to an improperly considered factor, the cause must be remanded for

resentencing.” Bourke , 96 Ill 2d at 332.

¶ 44 This ca se is unli ke Hearring . From the record as a whole and the trial court’s lengthy

discussion of the sentencing factors and the heinous circumstances of the aggravated kidnapping

and six armed robberies, we are able to determine that the impact of the void AUUW convictions

on defendant’s sentencing was insignificant and did not result in greater sentences.No. 1-22-0579

15 ¶ 45 Because we affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to file a successive postconviction for

the reasons we have discussed

, we need not reach the State’s arg uments that defendant did not

show cause or defendant’s claim was procedurally barred.

¶ 46 In conclusion, defendant has not sufficiently alleged prejudice from the mention of the two

void AUUW convictions at sentencing; we affirm the denial of his motion for l eave to file a second

successive postconviction petition.

¶ 47 Affirmed.