THIRD DIVISION JUNE 29, 2007 No. 1-05- 2646 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 00 CR 24939 ) TERE MA

GEE, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Marcus R. Salone, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CEGR

EIM A N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Foll owing a jury trial , defen

dant, Tere Magee, was convi cted of two co unts of arm ed ro bber y and t wo co unt s o f agg ra vat ed c riminal sexual as sau lt in co njunct ion wit h an incident in volvi ng two women at a beauty salon and was later sentenced to a to tal of 50 years’ im prisonm ent. On appeal , defen

dant contends that he was den ie d a fai r trial because the trial court im permissi bl y i nstructed the jury

that t he ey

ewi tnesses’ le

vel of certain

ty an d the accuracy of thei r prior desc

ri pti ons were re l ev an

t factors i n a sse ssi ng th e rel i ab i l i ty of thei r i den tif i cations. In addi ti on , de f en da n t con ten dsth at th e tr i al cou rt i m pr ope rl y i n crea se d h

i s s en ten ce af ter i ts im positi on. Fi

nal ly , defen dant contends that hi s m

ittim us m ust be corrected t o accurately refl ect the off enses for whi ch h e was conv

icted. The evidence adduced at trial dem onstr ated t hat, at appro xi

mately 11:30 p. m. on August 4, 2000, t he v

ictim s, T.J., a hairsty

li st, and S.D., her custo me

r, were leav

in g The Hai r Exchan ge beau t y salon w hen an a rmed man, lat er ident ifi ed by bo t h wo men as d efenda nt , a ppr oa ched and deman de d th ei r m on ey. T. J. com

pl i ed , but def

en da n t i n str uc ted th e v i cti m s, at g un poi n t, to1-05-2646

-2-

reenter the locked sal

on. Once i

nsi de, defen dant sexual

ly assaul ted both women. Wh

en defend ant event ually left, he t oo k T .J. ’s ca r k eys and her $30 0, S. D. ’s pu rse and he r $ 53, and both wome

n’ s pa nts a nd u nde rgarm en ts. The pol i ce a rri ve d on the sc ene soon

af ter an d were given de fendant ’s de scr ipt ion. The re aft er , t he vict ims separ at ely identified d efenda nt in a photo graphic array a

nd a l in eup. At t rial, T .J. t est ifi

ed t hat she ha d lo cke d t he fro nt do or t o t he sa lon and was in the pro cess of locking the external gate leadi ng to the salon’s entryway when def endant fi rst appro ached and pointed hi s handgun i n her f ace. It was "brigh

tly” l it out side at the time b ecause t he st re et lights w er e o n and light was re flect ing fro m insi de t he bea ut y shop . T .J. was loo king directl y a t defenda nt’s f ace when he dem anded h er money . Then, when

he f orced her and S.D. back i nsi de the shop, def

endan t t old them

to li e on the ground. Defen

dant turned off

the "side light” t hat co nst ant ly remained o n in the s hop ; ho weve r, T. J. s t at ed t hat t he so da p op machine co nt inued t o g ive off light. Defend ant t hen clo sed t he fro nt windo w cu rt ains and pac ed ba ck a nd for t h, a ppr oximat ely 12 t o 1 5 feet awa y from T .J. . S he wa s able t o s ee d efenda nt ’s face as he paced. Defe

ndan t subsequen

tly to ld b ot h wome

n to remove thei

r pants and un

derwear. He sexual ly assaul ted T.J. first as sh

e l ay on her bac

k lookin g at defen dant. Defen

dant then procee ded to wh

ere S.D . wasl

y i ng a nd a l so sexua l l y ass aul ted h er. De f

endan t, howev er, re mained wit hin T.J .’s view. When he finished, defend ant demand ed c ar keys. T. J. g ra bbed t he keys closest t o her and he lef t wit h the money she i

nitial ly gave him , S. D.’s pu rse, bot h women’s pan ts an d un derwe ar. A f

ter a f ew s econ ds, T.J . stood up an

d locked th

e f ront door of th

e sa l on. T. J. s ubse que nt ly call

ed he r mo t her beca use she lived ne ar by and t hen ca lled t he po lice. S he1-05-2646

-3-

appro xi mated that t he entire i

ncident lasted fi

ve m in utes. T . J. de sc r ibe d d efe nd an t t o t he jur y as a b lac k ma le, ap pr o ximat ely 5 fee t 9 in ch es t all, we igh ing ab o ut 16 5 p o un ds , wit h a med ium c o mple xio n, ha ze l o rgr ee n e yes , a b ig n o se an d fu ll li ps and havi

ng worn black pants, a black sweater and a bl ack skull cap during the offense. T.J. f urth er te sti f i ed tha t, wh en the pol i cearr i ve d, she prov i de d them wi th a si m i l ar d es cri ption of defen dant. T.J. recalled that the poli ce then drove S.D. to t he h ospital , while

she an d her m ot her f oll owe d i n T.J .’ s c ar . A

cou pl e of da y s l ate r, a detecti v e a rri v ed at T .J .’ s h

ous e a n d a sk ed h er to vie w p ho t o gr ap hs o f po ss ible s us pe ct s. T . J. immed iat ely r ec o gn ize d d efe nd an t as he ras sa ilant in on e of th e p h otogr

ap h s. Then, on

Septem b er 19 , 20 00 , T. J. wa s a sk

ed to v i ew a l i n eu p a t a po lice st at io n, du r ing wh ich she inst an t ly ide nt ified de fen da nt . Sh e r ec alle d b ein g a bso lut ely ce r t ain t ha t de fen da nt wa s t he o ffen de rbo t h t imes t ha t she ide nt ified him. On cr o ss - ex amina t io n, T . J. r ec alle d t ha t de fen da nt init ially o r de r ed he ran d S . D. t o lie fac ed o wn o n t he flo o r . Whe n t he y co mplie d, S. D. wa s c lo se en o ug h t o T . J. t ha t t he wo men co uld t ou ch. T. J. s t at ed t hat defend ant never "go t rid o f” his handg un t hro ugho ut t he incident , bu t she was not focusi

ng on i t so she could n

ot recall e xactl y w here i t was at any gi

ven tim e. T.J. t estif

ie d that t he descri

ption sh e gave to the poli ce was accurate as possi ble, but could not recall

whether sh e d es cr ibe d d ef

en da nt as ha vin g f

ul l lip s, be ing 6 f

ee t t all, we ig hin g 1 45 po un ds o rhis ex ac t eye co lor . T .J. admit t ed t hat she ha d a ha rd t ime appr oximat ing weight and he ight ; ho weve r, she stated t hat, durin

g her sub sequent identif

ic ations, "wh

en [sh e] saw hi m, [sh e] knew i t was hi m.” She coul d not recall

speaki ng to a detect iv

e whi le at the hospital . T.J. also could n ot recall wh

at t he de t ec t ive sa id

be fo r e s he vie we d t he ph o t o gr ap hic ar r ay.1-05-2646

-4-

S.D . te sti f i ed con siste n t wi th th e s eq uen ce of ev en ts a s des cr

i b ed b y T.J .. S h e state d th

at, whi l e def endan t was s ex ual l y ass aul tin g T.J., S.D . wasnot lookin g at h er or def

endan t. Howev er, wh en de f en da n t m ov ed ov er to S. D. , he k

n ee l ed ov er h er b ody wi th h i s f ac e a pp rox i mate l y 15 to 18 in ches away

from her own. Wh

en def endan t lef t t he sal on, he too k the bel

ongin gs descri bed by T . J. , as we ll $5 3 t ha t S. D. pr ev io us ly had in he rpa nt s. S. D. r ec alle d t ha t she wa s s t ill fright ened and c rying whe n t he po lice arr ived at t he sa lon. S. D. st at ed t hat she w ou ld no t have re po rt ed t hat she w as se xually assau lted beca use , a t t he t ime, she u nder st oo d t he t er m to be sy nony mous wi th rape and sh

e had n ot been raped. S.D. additional

ly testifi ed that she identif

ie d defendan t in a photo graphic array h eld at her house a cou ple of day s after the o ff

ense. She als o ident ifi ed d efenda nt in a lineup held a t a po lice st at ion so metime lat er . S .D . r eca lled ident ify ing defendan t quickly , without hesi

tat ion, on both o ccasions. On cross-exam

in ation, S.D. stat ed that she spoke to t he polic e at the salon a nd told them wh at ha d occurr ed; howe ver, she coul

d not rec al

l provi di ng th em wi th a descri

pti on of def endan t. S.D. recall

ed that, although def

endan t t urned off

the li ght in si de the sal

on, "[y]ou stil

l c ould see” be ca us e t he r e w as "s o me lig ht fr o m t he ba ck . ” S . D. t es t ified t ha t she sa w d efe nd an t ho ldin g h is ha nd gu n w hile in t he sa lo n, bu t she co uld no t r ec all e xa ct ly whe r e it wa s w hile h e w as se xu ally assaul ting h er. She stated t hat defe

ndan t sexual ly assaul ted her for approxim

ately two o r three mi nutes and that the entire in cident lasted abou t 30 min utes. Of f i cer Rob ert C

ree th te sti f i ed tha t he arr i ve d a t the be au ty sa l on s hor tl y af ter m i dn i gh t on August 5, 2000, and spoke to bot h vi ctim s separatel

y. The women to ld C reeth what had o cc ur r ed an d d es cr ibe d t he o ffe nd er . S . D. , ho we ve r , de nie d b ein g s ex ua lly as sa ul t ed . I nit iall y,1-05-2646

-5-

t her e we re a few d iscre panc ies bet wee n t he wo men’s de scr ipt ions; t her efo re , C re et h allowe d t he women to cal m down and then re quested tha

t they des cri be def endan t as ac curate l

y as p ossi bl e. Creeth wa s to l d th

at th e of f en der w as a b l ack m

al e, ab out 2 5 y

ea rsol d, a pp rox i mate l y 5 f eet 9 in ches tal l, wei ghi ng around 155 pounds, wi th a li ght complexi

on, hazel ey es and we arin

g bl ack pa n ts, a b l ack swe atsh i

rt a n d a b l ack skul l ca

p. C re eth su b se qu en tl y re l ea se d a

f l ash mes sa ge to ot her off ic ers wi th that descripti on. On cross-exam in ation, Creeth adm

itted that he chan

ged de fen da nt ’s de sc r ipt io n in t he o r igin al g en er al c as e r ep o r t aft er t he vic t ims a dv ise d h im o f so me in accuracies. Detective George Gal

la gher testif ie d that he i

nterviewed T.J. and S.D. while they were at t he ho sp it al. T . J. de sc r ibe d t he o ffen de ras a b lac k ma le, 25 t o 30 yea r s o ld, 5 fe et 10 inc he s t ell, wei ghi ng 1 55 to 170 poun

ds, wi th l i ght ski n, h aze l ey es, a slender f ace , bi g nos e an d f ull l i ps. S.D . de scri

b ed h i m as a b l ack m

al e, appr ox i mate l y 5 f eet 8 i n ch es tal l , w ei gh i n g 1 50 pou

n ds , w i th li ght skin an

d hazel ey es. Detective Th

omas Mc Cadd testif

ie d that, o n A

ugust 7, 2000, he separately adm in is tered a ph o t o gr ap hic ar r ay t o bo t h T . J. an d S . D. at t he ir r es pe ct ive ho mes . Bo t h vic t ims imme dia t ely i den ti f i ed de f en da n t as th ei r a ss ai l an t. Det ect ive Michael Mc Der mot t t est ifi ed t hat , o ver t he co ur se o f the mont h follow ing t he in ci dent, he i ssued a stop order and att em pted to locate and arrest def endan t. On September 18, 2000, after recei

vi ng i nf ormation f

rom def endan t’s fri end, McDerm

ot t, a numb er of addi

tional det ect ives and offi

cers fro m the Bell

woo d po li

ce depa rt ment set u p surveill ance in the friend’s home. McD er mot t event ually reco gnized defend ant in the ba ckyar d; anno unce d his o ffi ce; a nd1-05-2646

-6-

in structed defendan

t not to run away . Not withs tandin g, defen dant attempted to fl

ee through adj acent backy

ards, but McDerm

ot t caught hi

m wi thin approxim

ately fi ve m in utes and arrested him. The fo llowing d ay, Mc Der mot t co nduc t ed t wo sep ar at e lineups for eac h victim, d ur ing wh i ch b oth wom en pos i ti v el y i den ti f i ed de f en da n t. The def ense rested without presentin g any addi tional evi dence. The j ury ul

tim ately found def

endan t guil ty of two counts of armed robb ery an d four co unt s o f agg ra vat ed c riminal sexual as sau lt. The t rial co ur t denied defend ant ’s su bseq uent mo t io n fo ra n ew t r ial. Du ri ng de f en da nt’ s s en ten ci ng he ari ng , th e tri al cou rt con si de red arg um en ts i n m i ti ga ti on and aggravation. In aggravat ion, the Sta te pr esented cert if ied copies of three prior convictions; t est imony from t wo wo men who m defenda nt ro bbed a t gunp oint at beau t y salons in Ju ly and August 2000; an

d the in stant vi ctim

s’ i mpa ct stat em ents. The trial

court in itially entered convi ctions f or co unts I, II, IX, XIX, XXII and XXIII, and sentenced de fen dant to a t ot al

of 42 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t: a con cu rre n t 10 -y ea r p ri son ter m f or th e a rm ed rob b er y cou n ts, I a n d I I, to ru n co nsec ut ive to t he r emaining co unt s; and fou r c ons ecu t ive 8- years pr ison t er ms for t he aggra va ted cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t counts, I

X, XIX, X

XII an d XXIII . Af ter adm oni sh i ng d ef endan t of h i s ap pel l ate ri ghts , def en se c ouns el

ask ed th e court whet her any of t he co unt s merg ed. The t rial co ur t re spo nded in the a ffi rmat ive and mer ged co unt XI X int o c ou nt IX wit h an ac co mpanying co nsec ut ive sent ence of 1 6 year s’ impriso nment a nd
merg ed cou nt X XII I i nto c oun t XX II al so wi

th a n a cc om pa ny i ng conse cu ti ve 16- yea r pr i son t er m. De fen se co un se l t he n a dv ise d t he t r ial c o ur t r eg ar din g d efe nd an t ’s da ys o f cr ed it fo rt ime1-05-2646

1 The Fr ye anal

ysi s ( Fry e v. Uni ted St ates , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)), or general acc eptan ce test, control s wh

ethe r sci en tif i c ev i den ce is ad m i ssi bl e at tri al . In

re C om m i tmen t of -7- alrea dy ser ved, aft er which a c onve rsa t ion wa s held o ff the r eco rd . Whe n it r et ur ned o n t he record, the court m

odi f i ed de f endan t’s a rmed rob bery sen tenc e, such

that coun ts I an d II were corrected to refl ect a c oncu

rren t 18-y ear pr i son ter m , to run consec

uti ve to counts IX

and XXII, f or a total of 50 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. Th e tr i al cou rt d en i ed de f en da n t’s su b se qu en t m oti on to recon sider h

i s se nten ce, i n w hi ch he argue d, inter al

ia , th at h i s s en ten cewa s exc es si

ve i n l i gh t of hi s b ac kgr oun d a nd pa rtici pa ti on i n th e of f ense , an d al so den

i ed de f en da nt’ s s upp l em en tal moti on for a new tri al . This

tim el y a ppeal followed. As a n init ial mat t er , w e a dd re ss t he S t at e’ s mo t io n t o st rik e p o rt io ns o f de fend ant ’s b rie f, wh ich we t o o k u nd er ad vise men t wit h t his c as e. T he St at e a r gu es t ha t de fen da nt er r o ne o us ly re lies on s cient ifi

c evide nce no t pr ese nt ed a t t rial t o s upp or t his at t ack on t he r eliabili t y of t he vi ctim s’ i dentif ic ation. Def

endan t concedes that the scien

tif ic evi dence was

not considered at tri al ; h owe ve r, he re sp onds th

at th i s c ourt m ay consi de r th e a rticl esdi scus se d pu

rs ua nt to In re Co mmi t ment o f Simons , 213 Ill . 2d 523 (2004), where th e s up reme c our

t deter m i n ed th at a "revi ewi ng court may

consider not o nl

y the trial court record, but also, where appropriate, sou rce s ou tsi dethe rec ord, i nc l udi ng l eg al an d s ci en ti f i c a rticl es , as we l l ascou rt opi ni ons f rom ot her j urisdi

ctions.” In r e Co mmi

t ment o f Simons , 213 Ill . 2d at 531. We disagree . Defe ndan t’s broad appli

cation of the In r e Co mmi t ment o f Simons l an

gu ag e is b oth misl ead ing and inac cur at e. The issue be for e t he su pr eme co ur t in In r e Co mmi t ment o f Simons wa s w h eth er a rev i ewi n g c our t sh oul d c on du ct de novo review of a l ower c our t’s Fr ye anal

ysi s, 11-05-2646

Simons , 213 Ill . 2d at 529. -8- and, i n s o doin g, rel y upon m aterial s outsi

de th e tri al

record. In r e Co mmi

t ment o f Simons , 213 Il l . 2d at 5 30 -3 1. Th e s

up re me c our

t con cl uded th at de novo review was appropriate i n that co nt ext be ca us e " t he t r ial c o ur t is no t as ke d t o de t er mine t he va lidit y o f a p ar t icu lar sc ien t ific t ec hniq ue , ” b ut inst ea d mu st de t er mine w he t he ra g en er al c o nse nsu s e xist ed in t he sc ien t ific com m uni ty re gardi ng th e rel i ab i l i ty of the p arti cul

ar tech ni que a t is sue . In

re C om m i tmen t of Simons , 213 Ill . 2d at 532. I n that pursuit, rel yi ng on m aterial s outside the trial

record i s n

ot probl em ati c b eca use i ssues of wi tnes s cre di

bi l i ty a nd h ears ay do not ex

i st. In re C om m i tmen t of Simons , 213 Ill . 2d at 532, citing People v . Mil le r , 173 Il l . 2d 167 , 205 (1 996). Th e c as e a

t ba r i s c om plete l y di sti ng ui sh ab l e. P ri mari l y , no Fr ye anal

ys is was conducted at tr i al . M orei

m por tan t sti l l , de f en da n t doe s n ot m erel y re l y on th e s ci en ti f i c ev i den ce

to de m ons trate a g en era l ac ce pta nc e f or a p arti cul ar te ch ni que ; r ather, he su bm i ts th e a rticl esf or t he ir s ub st an ce an d u lt imat e fin din gs . T he r efo r e, t he r e is an ex ist ing co nc er n r eg ar din g h ea r sa y, in that the au tho r cannot be observed or cro ss-examin ed. Co nsequent ly

, we g rant the S tat e’s motion to strike those port ions of def endan t’s appella

te brief whi ch di scuss psy

chol ogical

studies not presented at t rial

and that do not appear in the record on appeal . See People v . Edwards , 74 Il l . 2d 1, 7 ( 1978)("[w]h

ere the rec ord i s i

ns uf f i cien t or does not dem

onstra te the a l l eged error, the re vi ewi ng c ourt mu st ref

rai n f rom s upposi tion and dec i de ac cordi

ngl y ”). We n ow tur n to t hose i ssues presen ted on appeal. Def

endan t fi rst contends that he was denied a fair t rial beca use t he jur y incor re ct ly relied up on t he level o f the wit nesse s’ ce rt ainty and the accura

cy of thei r prior desc

ri pti ons i n de term i ni ng w hether thei

r i den tif i cations were re l i ab l e.1-05-2646

-9-

The State responds that defendan t has wai ved thi s i ssue f

or purpo ses of appe al . In the al ternative, th e S tate argu es th at th e v i cti m s rel i ab l y i den ti f i ed de f en da n t. 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 Ill . 2d 176, 186-87 (1988). Defe ndan t concedes th at h e f ai l ed to pres er v e th i s iss ue ; h owev er , he c on

ten dsth at rev

i ew re mai n s prop er pu rsua n t to t he plain er ro r d oc t rine. Des pit e fo rfeit ur e, a r eviewing c ou rt may cons ider an er ro r u nder t he pla in error r ule

when the trial evi dence was

cl osely bal anced or when

the error is "so subs

tantial th at i t af f ec ted th e f un da men tal f ai rnes s of th e p roc ee di

n g, a n d r em ed y i n g th e error i s n ec es sa ry to preserve the i

ntegrity of the j udic ia

l process.” Pe o ple v. Ha ll , 194 Ill . 2d 305, 335 (2000); see 134 Il l . 2d R. 6 15(a). Appl ic ation of the pl

ai n error rule assum

es, however, that an error occurr ed i n the trial cou rt. We c onc l

ude tha t the tri al cou rt di d n ot err i n i ns tructi ng the j ury to con si de r th e l evel of t he wit ne ss es ’ c er t ain t y and t he ac cu r ac y o f t he ir p r io rde sc r ipt io ns in de t er mining wh et he rt he ir ide ntif ic ations were rel

ia ble. We are n

ot persuaded by

defen dant’s argum

ent that these two fact or s us ed in as sess ing wit ness ide nt ifi cat ions a re gr os sly m

isleading w her e co ur t s have co nsist ent ly relied up on t hos e and t he o t her fact or s first anno unce d by t he Su pr eme Co ur t in Ne il v. B i ggers , 409 U .S. 188, 3 4 L. Ed . 2d 401 , 93 S. C t. 375 (197 2), i n mak i n g r el i ab i l i ty determi nations . See Pe o ple v. Slim , 127 Ill . 2d 302 (1989) ; Pe o ple v. Ha rr is , 238 Ill . App. 3d 575, 578 (1992). Mo reover, defen dant concedes that the j ury was properly in structed t o consider all of the Ne il f actors. Cf. People v . Gonzalez , 32 6 I ll. A pp . 3d 62 9, 63 5- 38 ( 20 01 ) ( find ing pla in error where the trial c ourt read an "or” i n be tween each f

actor, thereby

im properly suggestin

g that1-05-2646

-10-

an y one f actor m ade th e iden tif i cation rel i ab l e). Conseq

uen tly , we f i nd n o pl ai n error. Waiver a side, we find t hat defend ant ’s co nvictio n was sufficient ly suppo rt ed by t he vi cti m s’ pos i ti ve i de nti f i ca ti ons . Al thou gh de f en da nt d i d n ot ex pl i ci tl y ch al l en gethe su f f i ci en cy of the evi den ce pre sen ted at tri al , he

attacke d the

rel i ab i l i ty of the v i cti m s’ testi mony and theref

ore we review whether the evidence support ed hi s convictions. Wh en revi ewi ng th e suf f i ciency of the ev i den ce, i t is ne ces sary

to determ

i ne "wh ethe r, af ter vi ewi ng th e ev i den ce i n the l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the pros ecuti

on, anyrational

trier of f act co uld ha ve fo un d t he es se nt ial e leme nt s o f t he cr ime be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t . ” ( E mph as is in origi na l .) Ja ck so n v. Vir gin ia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1 97 9) . It i

s n ot th e f un cti on of th e rev i ewi n g c our t to retry th e def en da n t or sub sti tute i ts j udgm en t for th at of th

e tri er of f act. Peo ple v. Eva ns , 2 09 I ll. 2d 1 94, 209 (2 004 ). Rat her , t he t rier of fac t asse sses t he cr edibility of t he wit nesse s, d et er mines the app ro pr iate weight of t he testi m ony and res olv

es c onf l i cts or i nc onsi sten cies i n the ev i den ce. Eva ns , 209 Il

l . 2d at 21 1. In o r de rt o o ve r t ur n t he t r ial c o ur t ’s jud gme nt , t he ev ide nc e mu st be "s o un sa t isfa ct o ry, imp r o ba ble or im plaus i bl e” to rai se a

reas onab l e doubt as to the de f endan t’s gu i l t. Pe o ple v. Slim , 127 Ill . 2d 302, 30 7 (198 9). T he lac k o f p hys ica l ev id en ce in t his ca se do es no t r en de rt he jury’s find ing un sa t isfa ct o ry, impro bable o r implausible, wher e t wo eyewit nesse s po sitively ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he pe r pe t r at o ro f t he cr imes . I de nt ifica t io n by a sing le w it ne ss is s uffic ien t t o su pp o r t a c o nvic t io n if the def endan t is vi ewed und er ci rcum stan ces perm i ttin g a pos i tiv e iden tif i cation. Slim , 217 Ill . 2d at 307. A n i den tif i cation, howev er, wi

l l not be deem ed suf f i cien t if i t is va gue or doub

tful . Slim ,1-05-2646

-11-

217 Ill. 2d at 307 . I n Ne il , the Supreme Court announced f actors t o be considered when evalua t ing t he r eliabili

t y of ident ifi

cat ion t est imony: (1 ) t he wit ness’ s o ppo rt unit y to view t he defend ant dur ing t he o ffense; ( 2) t he wit ness’ s de gr ee o f at t ent ion at t he t ime of o ffense; ( 3) t he accuracy of the wi tness’s prior descri

ption of the def

endan t; (4) the witness ’s l

evel of certain

ty at the s ubs eque nt iden tif i cation; and (5) the length of tim e b etween the cri

me an d the i den tif i cation. Ne il , 409 U.S. at 199-200, 34 L. Ed. 2d at 411, 93 S. Ct. at 382; see Slim , 127 Ill . 2d at 307-08. In the i nstant case, revi

ew of the record demons

trat es that both eyewi

tnesses provi

ded re liable identificat ions o f defend ant . T .J. and S .D . ha d ample t ime to view de fendant while being ro bbed a nd se xually assau lted at gunp oint . T .J. t est ifi ed t hat she w as fac e t o fa ce w ith d efenda nt wh en h e f i rs t ap pr oach ed h er outs i de un der the stre etl

i gh ts. In addi ti on , b oth wom en sta ted th at, al though defen

dant had turned off

a ligh t ins ide the beauty

salon, there was enough l igh t t o vie w defend ant ’s face while he wa s inches fr om t hem dur ing t heir r esp ect ive sexu al assa ult s. T .J. and S.D. were extremel

y a tt entiv e durin g the off enses , focusi

ng on def endan t’s features an

d the fact that his han dgun rem ai ned ev er present. The degree of attention l ed the vi ctim s to pro vi de de tai l ed de scri ptions of de f en da nt, such asapprox

i mati ons of hi s h ei gh t an d w ei gh t, th e c ol or of his eyes and co mplexion, facial feat ur es a nd wha t he wa s we ar ing. Alt hou gh t hese des cr ipt ions va ri ed sl i gh tl y , th e supr

em e c ourt h asde term i ne d that " [t]h

e p res en ceof di screp an

ci esor omi ssions i

n a wi tness’ des cription of the accused do not in and of them

sel ves gen erate a reasonabl e doubt as long as

a positi ve i dentif ic ation has been

ma de.” Slim , 127 Il

l . 2d at 30 9. Moreover, bot h T.J. and S.D. positi vel y i dentif ie d defen dant in separately

adm in is tered photo graphic arrays

withi n day s of the off

ense an d agai n i dentif ie d hi m i n di stin ct li neups1-05-2646

-12-

performe d approxim

ately si x weeks l ater. Each iden

tif ic ation was i

ndi vi dually ma de wi thout hesi tation. Accordin

gly , we concl

ude that the evidence suf

fi ci ently supported t he j ury’ s f

in din g. De fen da nt ne xt co nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t vio lat ed t he se nt en cin g s t at ut e b y impr o pe r ly in creasi ng hi s sen tence af ter it was al

ready i mposed. The State responds that defen dant has wa ive d r ev iew o f t his is su e. I n t he alt er na t ive , t he St at e a r gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly modifi ed defe ndan t’s sentence

durin g the sentenci

ng he arin g, "alm ost im me dia tely ” after the i

ni tial pr on oun cemen t. Defend ant co nced es t hat he failed t o p ro per ly prese rve t his issue by no t ra ising it in t he trial court . See People v . Reed , 177 Ill . 2d 389, 393-94 (1997), ci ting Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d at 186- 87. Ho weve r, re lyi

ng o n Peo ple v. Arna , 16 8 I ll. 2 d 1 07 , 11 3 ( 19 95 ) , de fen da nt ar gu es t ha t his sente nc e i s v oi d a nd the ref ore c an be ch al l en ge d a t an y ti me. W e f i nd tha t de f en da nt’ s rel i an ceon Arna is mi spl aced beca

use a sen tence i s deem

ed voi d when

the defe ndan t receive s a lesser sentence than requi

red by statut e (see Peo ple v. Yo ung , 3 34 I ll. App. 3d 7 85, 789 (2 002 ), citing People v . Wade , 1 16 I ll. 2d 1 , 6 (1 987 )) , a nd t her e is no suc h ar gument adva nced in the inst ant case. Notwithstandi

ng, we choose to address the meri ts of defen

dant’s cl ai m. See Peo ple v. Thomas , 3 54 I ll. App. 3d 8 68, 883 (2 004 ) ( waiver is a lim itat ion o n t he pa rt ies and not on t he court). At iss ue is w he t he rt he t r ial c o ur t impr o pe r ly incr ea se d d efe nd an t ’s se nt en ce "o nc e it [wa s] i m pos ed .” S ee730

IL CS 5/5 -8- 1(c ) (W

es t 200 0). Sec

ti on 5 -8- 1(c ) of

the Un i f i ed Code of Corr ections (Cod e) (730 I LCS 5/5-8- 1(c) ( West 2000)) pro vides:

"A m ot ion to reduce a sentenc e m ay be m ade, or t he court may

reduce a sen

tence1-05-2646

-13-

wi th out m oti on , w i th i n 30 da y s af ter th e s en ten ce i s i m pos ed . A de f en da n t’s ch al l en ge to t he co rr ec t ne ss o f ase nt en ce o rt o an y as pe ct o f t he se nt en cin g h ea r ing sh all b e ma de by a wr itt en mot ion filed wit hin 30 d ays follow ing t he impos itio n of se nt ence . H ow ever , t he court m ay not i ncreas e a s en

tenc e onc e i

t is i m posed .” The legi sl ature did not defi ne "i mpose” wi

thin the statut e; h

owever, it i s wel

l s ettled that, when inter pr et ing a st at ut e, we mus t asc er t ain and g ive effect t o t he inte nt of t he legislat ur e by giving term s the i r plai n m ean i ng. People v . Kilpa

trick , 167 Ill . 2d 439, 443 (1995). Moreover, o ur inter pr et at ion must co nsider "t he r eas ons for t he pr ovisio n, t he har ms to be r emedied , a nd t he goals to be achi

eved.” Ki

lpa trick , 1 67 I ll. 2d a t 443 . T he su pr eme co ur t has c onc luded t hat t he re aso ning app lied in Nort h Carolin a v. Pearce , 395 U.S. 711, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072 (1969 ), equa

l l y appl i es to the l anguag e of

section 5-8-1(c ). Ki

lpa trick , 167 Ill . 2d at 443-44; see People v . Baze , 43 Ill . 2d 298 (19 69) ; s eealso People v . Ri vera , 166 Il

l . 2d 279(1995 ). In Pearce , the Supreme Court concluded that i mposi ng a m ore severe sen

tence f oll owing retri al vi ol ate s a de f en da nt’ s d ueproc es s ri gh

ts b ec au se

i t es senti al l y pe na l ize s th e d ef en da nt f or ex ercisi ng h i s ri ght to chal

l enge h i s con vi cti on an d senten ce. Pearce , 395 U.S. at 725, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 669, 89 S. Ct. at 2080. Accordin gly , the purpose o f the Pearce rule i s to preven t a court f rom v i ndi cti ve l y rese nten ci ng a def endan t, deterri ng h i m f rom e xerci si ng h i s ri ghts . Pearce , 395 U.S. at 725, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 669, 89 S. Ct. at 2080. Our re sea rc h has no t re vealed any case s dire ct ly on po int in t his jurisdict ion. In People ex
r el. Ca r ey v. Ro sin , 75 Ill . 2d 151 (1979), t he ci rcuit court had modi fi

ed a senten

ce m ore t han 30 da ys a ft er t he se nt en ce wa s o r igin ally p r o no un ce d a nd en t er ed int o t he r ec o r d, an d t he su pr eme1-05-2646

-14-

cou rt con si de red whether a

sta y of a s en ten ce ’s execution tol

l ed the pe riod of i ts m odif i ca ti on pursuan t to secti on 5-8 -1(c). Ro sin , 75 I ll. 2 d a t 15 5- 56 . Aft er r ev iew ing t he Co de , t he su pr eme co ur t det er mined t hat t he impos itio n of a sent ence was never synonymou sly refer re d t o a s t he execution of

a s en ten ce , as arg ue d by the de f en da nt;the ref ore, the cou rt h el d that the i

m pos i ti on date, f or purpose s of

the statute, was

the date the

def endan t was s en tenc ed. Ro sin , 75 Ill . 2d at 157 . Mo st re cent ly, in People v . Rodriguez , 364 Ill . App. 3d 304 (2006), t he Second District referen ced the lack of def

in ed tim in g for the term "i

mpose” i n a f oot note: "Se ct ion 5 -8 -1 (c ) d oe s no t sup ply a definitio n of 'impo se, ’ which r aises int er est ing qu es t io ns. Fo rinst an ce , if a t r ial c o ur t o r ally p r o no un ce s a se nt en ce o f 10 mo nt hs b ut , in the s am e breath , correctsi

tself and articul

ates a sen tenc e of 10 y ears , ha s the

tria l court in creased an

al ready i mposed se

ntence? ” Rodriguez , 354 Ill . App. 3d at 319 n.3. The Rodriguez

co ur t , ho weve r, did no t add re ss t he qu est ion bec aus e its was unnec essa ry for t he di sposi tion of that appe al . Rodriguez , 354 Ill . App. 3d at 319 n.3. Co nsider ing t he plain meaning o f the st at ut e, its p ur po se a s de scr ibed in Pearce , a nd t he facts o f the case at bar, we fi nd that the t rial court did not im permissi bly increase defendant’s se nt en ce aft er it s imp o sit io n. Re vie w o f t he r ec o r d d emo nst r at es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t init ially mod ifi ed d efenda nt ’s ag gr avat ed c riminal sexual as sau lt se nt ence s imm ediat ely after admo nishing h i m of h i s a pp el l ate ri gh ts, f oll owi n g def ense cou n se l ’s i n qui ry wh eth er an y of th e f our cou n ts merged . The

court agre ed, m

erged two of the

coun ts an d m odi f i ed th e se nten ce accordi

ngl y . The trial court was sub sequentl

y a pprise d of def

endan t’s presentence de

tention credi

t and then sta ted tha t the matte r wa s c onc l

ude d; however, pri

or to dism

i ss i ng de f en da nt, a c onv ers ati on took1-05-2646

-15-

place off the re cord. Upon

return i ng on the re cord, the

court am ended def endan t’s a rmed rob bery sentence and then reman ded hi m i nto custo dy. W

e do not fin

d that defenda

nt’s sen tence was "i mposed” un

til the sentenci

ng proceedi

ngs com ple tely concl uded and def

endan t was dism

is sed f rom the cou rtroom . Ou

r i nte rpreta ti on of "i m pos e”an d a ppl i ca ti on to th e i ns tan t f ac ts do not compromise the protect ion of fered b y the statut e as descri

bed b y the Pearce ru le. Mo re ove r, any ot her in terp retat ion of the case at bar wou ld b e unreasonable an d a waste o f j udicial resources, wher e t he co ur t mod ifi

ed d efenda nt ’s se nt ence dur ing t he co nt inuo us s ent encing he ar ing wit hin, at m ost , m i n ute s of i ts i n i ti al pr on oun cemen t. We f i nd th ose ca ses ci ted by def endan t, Ki lpa trick and People v . Jones , 168 Ill . 2d 367 (1 995 ), dist inguishable fr om t he ca se a t bar . I n Ki lpa trick , t he su pr eme co ur t det er mined t hat t he t rial co ur t violat ed s ect ion 5 -8 -1 (c ) o f the Co de w hen it va cat ed t he de fendant ’s co nsec ut ive sente nc esof 9 a nd 6 y ea rs ’ i m prison men t on a moti on to rec ons i de r an

d i m pos ed a s i ngl e term of 15 yea rs’ impriso nment be cau se, altho ugh t he o ver all number o f years r emained t he sa me, t he court i m perm i ssi bl y i ncreas ed one of

the c ounts a

f ter i ts i ni tia l i m posi tion . Ki lpa trick , 167 Ill . 2d at 446 -4 7. Simil

ar ly, in Jones , the supreme c ourt hel d that t he trial

court violated section 5-8-1(c) of the Code when, upon reconside ration, the trial

court vacated an i

mproper consecuti

ve sen tence and i m posed a longer sen

tenc e on a

si ngl e coun t. Jones , 1 68 I ll. 2d a t 372 -7 3. In bo t h cas es, t he trial court in creased the def

endan ts’ sentence s upon reconsideration, unl ike in the case at bar wh er e t he t r ial c o ur t mo difie d d efe nd an t ’s se nt en ce wit hin h is s en t en cin g h ea r ing . Ou rca se is
m ore s i m i l ar to People v . Graham, 229 Ill . App. 3d 733 (1992), where the Fourth Distri ct de term i ne d that s ec ti on 5 -8- 1(c ) of the Code w asnot v

i ol ate d by the l ower cou

rt’ s a l tera ti on of1-05-2646

-16-

the defe ndan t’s sentence

prior to t he concl

usi on of the sen

tenci ng he arin g after he dem

onstrated an unw i l l i ngn ess to compl y wi th the term s of the c ourt’s ori

gi na l proba tion sen tenc e. Graham

, 229 Ill . App. 3d at 736. Accordingl y, we f in d that t he trial

court did n

ot violate section 5-8-1(c) of the Code. De f en da n t f i n al l y con ten ds , a n d th e S tate con ce de s, th at h

i s m i tti m usm us t b e c orre cte d to acc ur at ely reflect t he o ffenses fo r w hich he wa s co nvicte d. Defend ant ’s mitt imus reflect s t hat he wasconv i cted of three coun ts of a ggrav ated s ex ual ass aul t, on coun

ts VI, IX a

nd X XI. However, def endan t was m erel y conv i cted of coun ts IX an d XXII, w

here coun t XIX m erged i nto coun t IX an d c oun t XX III m

erg ed i nto c oun t XX II. W

he re th e re port of the proc ee di ng s a nd the com mon la w record confl

ict, t he court’s oral order contro ls . See People v . Peeples , 155 Ill . 2d 422, 496 (1993 ). Rem

and i s un ne ces sary to correct def

endan t’s m i ttim us b eca use , und er Suprem

e Court Rule 6 15( b)( 1) (1 34 I ll. 2d R . 6 15( b)( 1) ), t his co ur t has a ut hor ity t o o rd er t he cler k t o mak e t he ne ces sary correcti on. People v . McCray , 273 Ill . App. 3d 396, 403 (1995). We, therefore, i nstruct the c i

rcui t cl erk to correc t the m

i ttim us to ref l ect con vi cti ons f or countsIX an

d XXII, one to each victim, under section 12-14(a)(4) of the Cri mi nal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/12- 14(a)(4) (West 200 0)). Acco rd ingly, we a ffi

rm de fendant ’s co nvictio ns and sent ence . We furt her instr uct t he cl erk of the ci

rcuit court t o cor rect defenda nt’s m ittim us as i nstructed. Af fi rmed; mi tt im us corrected. THEIS, P.J ., and K

AR NEZIS , J. con

cur.