Court Opinion

ID: 9525298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:01:51.188654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:16.039227
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINLAN, dissenting: I dissent because I believe that the trial judge was required to consider the evidence regarding defendant Young’s conduct subsequent to the initial sentencing hearing. In our original Rule 23 order, we remanded the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence, observing that the record before us at that time indicated very little, if any, potential for rehabilitation, but because of the defendant’s age and the fact that the sentence as imposed precluded the possibility of parole, the sentence should be reconsidered. Under such circumstances, it seems clear to me that the trial judge was obligated to consider any relevant evidence regarding the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and the evidence proffered here by the defendant concerning his good prison behavior and conduct since his initial sentencing was certainly relevant concerning this issue. In People v. Johnson (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 763, 331 N.E.2d 306, this court vacated the sentence imposed upon remand of a conviction for murder and three counts of armed robbery where the death penalty had been imposed along with the imposition of a concurrent term of years on the armed-robbery convictions. We found the minimum sentence imposed by the trial judge on remand of four concurrent terms of 40 years’ to 60 years’ imprisonment improper in view of our statutorily and constitutionally required consideration of not only the seriousness of the offense, but also a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. We further found that there had been particularly relevant evidence introduced there concerning the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, viz., testimony concerning the defendant’s behavior and manifest rehabilitation during the almost six years in the penitentiary following his conviction. Because of the persuasiveness of this testimony concerning the defendant’s rehabilitation during his period of incarceration and his potential for future rehabilitation, and, the additional fact, that the record did not indicate that the court there had properly taken this evidence into consideration in resentencing, we concluded that the minimum sentence imposed had to be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. While I agree with the majority that the recent United States Supreme Court case of Skipper v. South Carolina (1986), 476 U.S. 1, 90 L. Ed. 2d 1, 106 S. Ct. 1669, which required, as a matter of constitutional law, a court to consider post-arrest behavior in sentencing was limited by the court to death cases, the reason for requiring the consideration of this evidence in those cases is persuasive here also. The Supreme Court stated that it could hardly be disputed that the testimony offered regarding the defendant’s good behavior while in jail awaiting trial was relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment. Also, the court observed that while consideration of a defendant’s past conduct as an indication of his probable future conduct was inevitable and not an undesirable element of criminal sentencing, any sentencing authority must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when it engages in the process of determining what sentence to impose, and evidence concerning the defendant’s future conduct, e.g., whether the defendant posed a danger to society in the future, or that he would not, was proper evidence also. That type of evidence, i.e., evidence of possible future conduct, the court stated, must be considered by the sentencer in a death case. The Supreme Court found that the exclusion of such relevant mitigation evidence would prevent a trial court from carrying out its task of considering all relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender. 476 U.S. 1, _, 90 L. Ed. 2d 1, 9, 106 S. Ct. 1669, 1673. This is properly the function of the sentencing judge in all criminal cases, as the Supreme Court in Williams v. New York (1949), 337 U.S. 241, 247, 93 L. Ed. 1337,1342, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083, observed: “A sentencing judge, however, is not confined to the narrow issue of guilt. His task within fixed statutory or constitutional limits is to determine the type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt has been determined. Highly relevant — if not essential — to his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.” Additionally, in determining a proper sentence following a retrial, the court found in North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072, that a defendant’s conduct subsequent to his initial sentence hearing was also relevant to resentencing: “A trial judge is not constitutionally precluded *** from imposing a new sentence, whether greater or less than the original sentence, in the light of events subsequent to the first trial that may have thrown new light upon the defendant’s ‘life, health, habits, conduct, and mental and moral propensities. ’ Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 245. Such information may come to the judge’s attention from evidence adduced at the second trial itself, from a new presentence investigation, from the defendant’s prison record, or possibly from other sources. The freedom of a sentencing judge to consider the defendant’s conduct subsequent to the first conviction in imposing a new sentence is no more than consonant with the principle, fully approved in Williams v. New York, supra, that a State may adopt the ‘prevalent modern philosophy of penology that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.’ Id., at 247.” 395 U.S. 711, 723, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 668, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 2079-80. While, as I have stated, Skipper was limited to death cases, I, nevertheless, believe that the Skipper case is analogous to the case here, since the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole, which was, in a real sense, a death sentence for the defendant concerning his life in the community or society from which he had come. Furthermore, the court here, as had the trial court in Skipper, failed to consider the defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence of his rehabilitation while incarcerated and thus his potential for future rehabilitation contrary to the trial court’s obligation to consider all relevant facets of the character and record of the defendant in imposing a sentence. In Skipper, the court found that this violated the Federal Constitution. I submit, the requirements of our statute and constitution here (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, pars. 1005 — 4— 1(a)(3), 1005 — 5—3.1(a)(9), 1005-5-3.1(b), 1005-5-3(d); Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 11), similar to the requirements of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution in death cases, were violated. In Lockett v. Ohio (1978), 438 U.S. 586, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973, 98 S. Ct. 2954, and Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982), 455 U.S. 104, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1, 102 S. Ct. 869, the Supreme Court found that the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution required that a sentencer not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. Thus, a statute may not preclude a sentencer from consideration of any mitigating factors, nor may the sentencer himself refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence. This is so because the risk is great that the death penalty will be imposed when a less severe penalty would properly have been imposed if the mitigating evidence had been received and considered. Such a risk is not acceptable under the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution where a capital crime is involved. I believe this risk is also unacceptable under the provision of our Unified Code of Corrections (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1001 — 1—2(a) et seq.) and the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 11), in the circumstances posed by the situation here where the defendant faces a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Also, while I do concur with the majority’s resolution concerning defendant’s extended-term sentence for armed robbery based on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Neal (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 180, 489 N.E.2d 845, cert, denied (1986), 476 U.S. 1165, 90 L. Ed. 2d 733, 106 S. Ct. 2292), I do, however, find the majority’s reasoning a bit ironic. The Neal case upheld the extended-term sentence for the burglary conviction there under the extended-term statute even though the court had imposed a death sentence on the murder conviction. Interestingly, the basis for the majority’s conclusion here, that the Neal case was controlling, is that the imposition of the life sentence in the present case was analogous to the death sentence in Neal for purposes of considering the extended-term sentence. Nevertheless, the majority found the defendant’s life sentence, without possibility of parole, not analogous to the death penalty sentence in Skipper for purposes of considering mitigating evidence regarding the defendant’s rehabilitation and potential for rehabilitation. Contrary to the majority’s differentiation, I believe that the imposition of the death sentence and the defendant’s life sentence without the possibility of parole are analogous in both situations and particularly so for purposes of requiring the sentencing judge to consider proffered relevant mitigating evidence before imposing a life sentence without the possibility for parole. Of course, the weight to be given to the mitigating evidence is for the trial judge to determine. (See Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982), 455 U.S. 104, 114-15, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1, 11, 102 S. Ct. 869, 877). However, to not require a trial judge to consider such relevant evidence would allow the judge to disregard the sentencing scheme set forth in the Code of Corrections and required by our constitution. (Cf. Williams v. New York (1949), 337 U.S. 241, 245, 93 L. Ed. 1337, 1341, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083.) Mr. Young was entitled to have a sentence imposed that takes into account his potential, if any, to be rehabilitated and to reenter society, if possible, as a productive individual. The failure to consider the evidence proffered by the defendant here did not offer him this opportunity. Accordingly, I would vacate the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand the matter for resentencing of the defendant consistent with the views expressed herein. I would also require that this case be assigned to a judge other than the original sentencing judge for purposes of the resentencing. See People v. Kendrick (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 426, 432 N.E.2d 1054; People v. Mac Rae (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 266, 397 N.E.2d 509; People v. Luttmer (1977), 48 Ill. App. 3d 303, 362 N.E.2d 1093.