Court Opinion

ID: 9543646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:43.260964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:50.960284
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the court:  In defendant’s petition for rehearing, he correctly points out that the aggravated battery for which defendant was convicted involved the element of the use of a deadly weapon (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(b)(1)) rather than the element of causing great bodily harm (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(a)). Nevertheless, the aggravated battery and the home invasion offenses of which defendant was convicted each required elements not a required part of the other offense, and neither offense was an included offense of the other. People v. Hood (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 315, 319 N.E.2d 802, People v. Hunt (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 366, 347 N.E.2d 884, and People v. Weaver (1968), 93 Ill. App. 2d 311, 236 N.E.2d 362, cited in defendant’s petition for rehearing in support of his argument that both offenses for which he was convicted arose from the same act, are all pre-People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 363 N.E.2d 838. They were all decided upon the theory, discarded by King, that two convictions could not arise from the same course of conduct without independent motivation. LONDRIGAN and TRAPP, JJ., concur.