Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLUGBALAH RIDLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 2004-01-30
Citations: 345 Ill. App. 3d 1091
Docket Number: No. 4-03-0116
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLUGBALAH RIDLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series
Volume: 345
Pages: 1091–1095

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLUGBALAH RIDLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Fourth District
No. 4-03-0116
Opinion filed January 30, 2004.
Daniel D. Yuhas and Susan M. Wilham, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
John C. Piland, State’s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Linda Susan McClain, all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion:
JUSTICE TURNER
delivered the opinion of the court:
In June 2000, the State charged defendant, Olugbalah Ridley, with armed robbery. In August 2000, a jury found defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced defendant to 21 years' imprisonment. In November 2002, this court affirmed defendant's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. In January 2003, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years' imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in sentencing him to a prison term greater than six years. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2000, a grand jury indicted defendant on the charge of armed robbery alleging he, while armed with a dangerous weapon, a gun, took property from the presence of Kenyon Ross by the use of force in violation of section 18 — 2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Criminal Code) (720 ILCS 5/18 — 2(a)(2) (West 2000)). A jury found defendant guilty. In September 2000, the trial court sentenced defendant to 6 years' imprisonment plus an additional 15-year enhancement pursuant to section 18 — 2(b) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/18 — 2(b) (West 2000)). The court also found the armed robbery resulted in great bodily harm to the victim, requiring defendant to serve 85% of the sentence imposed.
In November 2002, defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, the 15-year sentence enhancement must be vacated in light of People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392, 769 N.E.2d 928 (2002). This court affirmed defendant's conviction but, in light of Walden, vacated defendant's 15-year sentence enhancement and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. People v. Ridley, No. 4-00-1064 (November 14, 2002) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
In January 2003, defendant filed a memorandum of law prior to the resentencing hearing, arguing the trial court was required to sentence defendant to six years in prison. The court sentenced defendant to 15 years' imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues the trial court should have sentenced him to a six-year prison term, thereby striking the unconstitutional portion of his original sentence. We disagree.
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that his case is governed by this court's ruling in People v. Baker, 341 Ill. App. 3d 1083, 794 N.E.2d 353 (2003). In that case, the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of 40 years in prison for aggravated kidnaping, which included a 15-year enhancement for being armed with a firearm, 30 years in prison for armed violence, and 5 years in prison for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Baker, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 1084-85, 794 N.E.2d at 355. On appeal, the defendant argued, inter alia, the 15-year enhancement for aggravated kidnaping violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11). Baker, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 1085, 794 N.E.2d at 355. This court agreed, vacated the 15-year enhancement, and remanded with directions that the trial court issue an amended written judgment to reflect the defendant's sentence for aggravated kidnaping was 25 years. Baker, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 1090, 794 N.E.2d at 359.
This court did not hold, as defendant contends, the defendant's sentence in Baker had to be set at 25 years as a result of subtracting the 15-year enhancement from the 40 years imposed initially by the trial court. Instead, this court reduced the defendant's sentence for aggravated kidnaping to 25 years to be served concurrently with the defendant's 30-year sentence for armed violence. This court used its power pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 615(b) (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(b)) and nowhere did this court indicate a reviewing court could not remand for a new sentencing hearing. Moreover, defendant advances no argument why a new sentencing hearing would be inappropriate, prejudicial, or otherwise unlawful.
We further note section 5 — 5—4 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) states, in part, as follows:
"Where a conviction or sentence has been set aside on direct review or on collateral attack, the court shall not impose a new sentence for the same offense or for a different offense based on the same conduct which is more severe than the prior sentence *." 730 ILCS 5/5 — 5—4 (West 2002).
Similarly, our supreme court has stated that "a harsher sentence imposed after a successful appeal or motion to reconsider is only proper if it is based on additional bad conduct performed by the defendant after the original sentencing." People v. Moore, 177 Ill. 2d 421, 433, 686 N.E.2d 587, 594 (1997).
In the case sub judice, the trial court sentenced defendant to 21 years in prison. Upon resentencing, defendant received a 15-year prison sentence for the same criminal behavior. As a result, defendant's total sentence was reduced. Thus, defendant cannot argue the trial court increased his sentence on remand.
Section 5 — 5—4 of the Unified Code works to protect the due process rights of defendants "by preventing vindictiveness in resentencing a defendant for having exercised his appeal rights or his right to file a post[ ^judgment motion." People v. Woolsey, 278 Ill. App. 3d 708, 710, 663 N.E.2d 763, 765 (1996); see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 54 L. Ed. 2d 604, 610, 98 S. Ct. 663, 668 (1978) ("To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort"). In this case, defendant has not argued the sentence imposed by the trial court resulted from vindictiveness that would justify reversal of defendant's cause.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed.