Opinion ID: 2066094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prospective Application of Gacho

Text: On direct review, defendant claimed that he was denied due process and his right not to be arbitrarily and capriciously sentenced to death. (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 2.) Defendant contended that these constitutional violations resulted from the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury of the mandatory alternative sentence of natural life imprisonment. This court held that the rule requiring the instruction (see People v. Gacho (1988), 122 Ill.2d 221, 262, 119 Ill.Dec. 287, 522 N.E.2d 1146), was prospective only. Therefore, the trial court properly instructed the jury based on existing law. 128 Ill.2d at 430-31, 132 Ill. Dec. 366, 539 N.E.2d 1172; accord People v. Steidl (1991), 142 Ill.2d 204, 244-45, 154 Ill. Dec. 616, 568 N.E.2d 837; Fields, 135 Ill.2d at 65-66, 142 Ill.Dec. 200, 552 N.E.2d 791. In his post-conviction petition, defendant now contends that this court's disposition of this issue on direct review violated his eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. However, our holding on direct review is res judicata; the issue cannot be relitigated by recharacterizing it. ( People v. Spreitzer (1991), 143 Ill.2d 210, 223-24, 157 Ill.Dec. 467, 572 N.E.2d 931.) We cannot say that the trial court manifestly erred in dismissing this claim.