Opinion ID: 2110800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Alternative Sentences

Text: Defendant also contends that he was denied his State and Federal right to a fair and reliable sentencing hearing because the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the alternative sentences available under Illinois law. This court, however, has previously stated that, in a single murder case, the trial court need not tell a sentencing jury all the possible terms of imprisonment a court might impose on a defendant if the jury does not sentence him to death. ( People v. Bean (1990), 137 Ill.2d 65, 116, 147 Ill.Dec. 891, 560 N.E.2d 258.) We find no occasion to reconsider this holding; therefore, this claim must also fall. Finally, the defendant alleges three additional arguments regarding sentencing that are without merit and are summarily rejected: (1) that the trial court violated defendant's rights by refusing to allow him the right of allocution at the death penalty hearing; (2) that the Illinois death penalty is violative of the eighth and fourteenth amendments because it places a burden of proof on the defendant which precludes meaningful consideration of mitigation; and (3) that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it does not sufficiently minimize the risk of arbitrarily or capriciously imposed death sentences. In People v. Gaines (1981), 88 Ill.2d 342, 58 Ill.Dec. 795, 430 N.E.2d 1046, this court held that a defendant does not have a right of allocution at a death penalty hearing. We find defendant's argument for reconsideration of this holding unpersuasive. Similarly, this court has on numerous occasions rejected the assaults on the death penalty that the defendant brings. (See, e.g., People v. Simms (1991), 143 Ill.2d 154, 157 Ill.Dec. 483, 572 N.E.2d 947.) Again, defendant has not presented any persuasive reason to reconsider those decisions.