Court Opinion

ID: 9744538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:05:30.064799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.868899
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority correctly reverses and remands this cause for a hearing on the issue of the effective assistance of counsel. I concur, therefore, in that narrow portion of the majority’s judgment. However, for the reasons set forth in my dissents in People v. Hickey, 204 Ill. 2d 585, 636 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), and People v. Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 581 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), I believe defendant’s convictions and sentence should also be set aside because the trial proceedings were conducted without the minimum constitutional assurances established by the new supreme court rules governing capital cases. As a result, this cause should be remanded for a new trial conducted in compliance with the new rules. Additionally, I share Chief Justice Harrison’s belief that the death sentence should not stand for at least one other reason. Specifically, the State initially failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wiley was guilty of armed robbery. People v. Wiley, 165 Ill. 2d 259, 303-05 (1995) (Harrison, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Thus, even if defendant were not entitled to the constitutional guarantees established by the new rules, his death sentence should still be vacated because it was solely predicated upon the armed robbery convictions.