Court Opinion

ID: 9724926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:21:13.061026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:07.979828
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE QUINN, specially concurring. I concur in the affirmance of the defendant’s convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. I also concur in the reversal of defendant’s convictions for armed violence based on merger. I write separately to express my belief that this case should not be remanded for resentencing. As the majority makes clear, defendant’s three consecutive 30-year terms of imprisonment were proper under section 5 — 8—4(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—4(a) (West 1994)). However, defendant’s aggregate sentence of 210 years did violate the limiting language of subsection 5 — 8—4(c)(2), which stated: “[T]he aggregate of consecutive sentences shall not exceed the sum of the maximum terms authorized under Section 5 — 8—2 for the 2 most serious felonies involved.” 730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—4(c)(2) (West 1994). Under subsection 5 — 8—2(c)(2), the maximum sentence for defendant’s first degree murder conviction in the unrelated case was 100 years and the maximum sentence for any one of his attempted murder convictions in this case was 60 years. Consequently, defendant’s aggregate maximum sentence under subsection 5 — 8—4(c)(2), as written at the time of this offense, was 160 years. People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36, 45 (2000); People v. Tucker, 167 Ill. 2d 431, 436 (1995). It should be noted that subsection 5 — 8—4(c)(2) was amended effective July 22, 1997, to provide that its limitations do not apply to offenses which were not committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective. The factual scenario in the case sub judice would make this amended language applicable to this defendant but the amendment is only applicable to offenses committed after July 22, 1997. In the unrelated case, defendant was sentenced to an extended term of 90 years for first degree murder and 30 years consecutively for attempted first degree murder. This court vacated the sentences as the 90-year extended term violated the holding in Apprendi. People v. Austin, 1—99—1272 (December 11, 2001) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23, McBride, J., dissenting). As the sentences in that case have been vacated, the 90-year sentence imposed in this case fully complies with section 5 — 8—4(c)(2) of the Unified Code of Corrections. 730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—4(c)(2) (West 1994). I understand the rationale behind remanding this case for resentencing. As a practical matter, however, defendant must now be resentenced for both cases. One of the trial courts must impose a sentence before the other court imposes the second sentence. As defendant’s sentence in this case no longer violates subsection 5 — 8— 4(c)(2), and there are no other grounds upon which this court should vacate that sentence, I would not remand this case for resentencing.