This clearly does not rise to the level of a per se conflict of interest. Moreover, defendant has presented no evidence that would support a conclusion that Logli's relationship with the store involves such significant emotional ties that his personal interests influenced the discharge of his duties. Also, defendant has presented no evidence that the alleged interest has caused him actual and substantial prejudice. Indeed, the only evidence that defendant has produced is that the State's Attorney and the store share the same name and that defendant believes that the State's Attorney's cousins own the store. After reviewing the record, we must conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a special prosecutor was not needed.
Defendant raises no challenge to the imposition of the extended-term sentences.
283 Ill. App. We must therefore determine whether defendant's crimes were committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of his criminal objective. 225 Ill. App. Consecutive sentences are to be imposed sparingly, and we will modify such sentences if the record does not support their imposition. Here, the jury's verdict clearly shows that defendant's criminal objective was to rob the store.