Court Opinion

ID: 9860299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:17:30.571946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:40.132011
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE BILANDIC, dissenting: The conclusion reached in this case by both the trial court and a unanimous appellate court is supported by both common sense and logic. At the original sentencing, the trial judge made the considered determination that the defendant deserved a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. The trial judge accordingly entered a sentencing order which resulted in the defendant receiving a prison term of 15 years. The defendant moved for reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the trial judge again imposed a sentence which resulted in the defendant receiving a prison term of 15 years. Thus, the defendant’s sentence was not increased, and no violation of our criminal code, nor of constitutional principles, occurred. The defendant clearly was not the victim of a vindictive judge who sought to punish the defendant more severely because he had attacked his original sentence. In fact, the majority acknowledges that the record will not support any suggestion that the trial judge was motivated by vindictiveness in his modification of the defendant’s sentence. 167 Ill. 2d at 447. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. I also join in the dissent of my learned colleague, Justice James D. Heiple, and his reliance on Pythagoras. JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this dissent.