Opinion ID: 2076678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: defense counsel's alleged failure to properly preserve meritorious issues for appeal

Text: The defendant makes a very vague and general statement that a number of grounds have been advanced on appeal and states that because this was a death case, a higher quality of representation must also apply to the trial attorney's preservation of trial errors for the record on appeal. The defendant further states that to the extent that this Court concludes that various trial errors were not properly preserved by trial counsel (and are not plain error), Robert Ramirez was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. In the instant case, the defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorneys failed to preserve unspecified issues for review. The defendant cannot make a general assertion of incompetence without even pointing out specific instances where issues were not preserved and expect this court to determine whether his contention is meritorious. The defendant has failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7), which provides that arguments made in support of issues raised in an appeal before this court shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on. (87 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7).) We will not address this general allegation. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that error was committed during the defendant's sentencing hearing. While the defendant did not raise any issues concerning the trial on the merits, we have reviewed the entire record for errors and have concluded that while we affirm the judgment of the circuit court finding the defendant guilty of attempted armed robbery and murder, the cumulative impact of the errors in the sentencing hearing render the sentence of death improper. ( People v. Whitlow (1982), 89 Ill.2d 322, 341.) The sentence of death is therefore vacated and the cause is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. We also note that neither the State nor the defendant raised the issue of the defendant being sentenced for the charge of attempted armed robbery. The record gives no indication that the defendant was ever sentenced on that charge. Therefore, this cause is also remanded for the purpose of determining the sentence to be imposed on the attempted-armed-robbery conviction. Affirmed in part and vacated in part; cause remanded, with directions.