Opinion ID: 2083453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Consideration of Mental Impairments

Text: Defendant argues that the evidence he presented with his post-conviction petition demonstrated that he is mentally impaired, was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the murder, and lacked the capacity to waive his jury for sentencing. Defendant contends that, because the sentencing court did not consider the evidence of his mental condition, his death sentence cannot be the result of the constitutionally guaranteed individualized assessment of mitigating factors. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). We reject defendant's argument. The cases defendant relies upon all involved situations where the sentencer either refused or was prevented from considering mitigating evidence in determining the defendant's sentence. See Penry, 492 U.S. at 319-20, 109 S.Ct. at 2947, 106 L.Ed.2d at 278-79 (jury precluded from considering evidence and giving it mitigating effect); Eddings, 455 U.S. at 113-14, 102 S.Ct. at 877-76, 71 L.Ed.2d at 10-11 (sentencing judge refused to consider, as a matter of law, relevant mitigating evidence); Lockett, 438 U.S. at 607-08, 98 S.Ct. at 2966, 57 L.Ed.2d at 991-92 (consideration of mitigating evidence limited to three statutory mitigating factors). The eighth amendment does not, as defendant's argument implies, mandate that defendant or his counsel present every bit of potentially mitigating information. Rather, the eighth amendment prohibits a State from precluding a sentencing body from considering any potential mitigating evidence presented by the defendant. People v. Scott, 148 Ill.2d 479, 560, 171 Ill.Dec. 365, 594 N.E.2d 217 (1992); see also Eddings, 455 U.S. at 115 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. at 877 n. 10, 71 L.Ed.2d at 11 n. 10 ( Lockett requires the sentencer to listen). Defendant's contention is comparable to one made by the defendant in People v. Wright, 149 Ill.2d 36, 50-53, 171 Ill.Dec. 424, 594 N.E.2d 276 (1992). In Wright, the defendant, relying upon Eddings, argued that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he was sentenced without the benefit of undiscovered reports which would reveal evidence of his troubled youth. This court determined that the proper analysis of defendant's claim was to determine whether he had been prejudiced under the Strickland standard. Wright, 149 Ill.2d at 50-51, 171 Ill.Dec. 424, 594 N.E.2d 276. Because we have already determined that defendant was not prejudiced by any alleged incompetence of his defense counsel at sentencing, this related argument must also fail.