He was initially sentenced to respective terms of twelve to twenty years' and eight to fifteen years' imprisonment. The sentences were originally ordered to run concurrently to each other and consecutively to a prior sentence that defendant was serving at the time of sentencing. Thereafter, the trial court modified its sentencing decision and ordered that defendant serve the sentences in this case consecutively, but that these sentences should be served concurrently with the prior sentence that defendant was already serving.
Defendant now appeals as of right.
We affirm defendant's sentence for the home invasion conviction, but vacate the sentence for the assault conviction and remand for resentencing. Defendant argues that his original concurrent sentences were valid and that the trial court erred in amending the judgment of sentence and making the sentences consecutive. A trial court's authority to resentence a defendant depends upon whether the original sentence was valid or invalid. After sentencing, during argument on a defense motion for resentencing on other grounds, the prosecution argued to the court that it had sentenced defendant to concurrent terms under the erroneous belief that it had no discretion to make the sentences consecutive. The home invasion statute permits consecutive sentencing when another felony occurs during home invasion.