Court Opinion

ID: 9713817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:23:07.060423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.761495
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BILANDIC, dissenting: The only issue in this appeal is whether defendant’s two convictions for home invasion can stand. I would hold that they can. The State’s evidence showed that defendant and his accomplice forced their way inside a home. Once inside, defendant beat a person named Stewart while the accomplice beat another person named Edmonds. The jury convicted defendant of one count of home invasion for his entry and beating of Stewart. The jury also convicted defendant of a second count of home invasion based on his accountability for his accomplice’s entry and beating of Edmonds. As the majority correctly notes, the offense of home invasion includes the following elements: (1) an unauthorized entry into the dwelling of another where the defendant knows or has reason to know that one or more persons are present; and (2) the defendant intentionally causes injury or, while armed with a dangerous weapon, the defendant uses or threatens force upon any persons within the dwelling. The facts of the present case warrant two convictions for home invasion. Defendant is responsible for his own unlawful entry and his beating of Stewart. Defendant is also legally responsible for his accomplice’s unlawful entry and beating of Edmonds. The one act, one crime rule is not implicated under these circumstances because the two offenses are carved from wholly different physical acts. See People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977) (holding that no more than one offense can be carved from the same physical act). The majority relies upon People v. Cole, 172 Ill. 2d 85 (1996), and People v. Sims, 167 Ill. 2d 483 (1995), in support of its conclusion that defendant’s second conviction for home invasion is prohibited. Those cases, however, are distinguishable from the present case. Cole established the rule that where one defendant unlawfully enters a home and intentionally causes injury to two or more persons inside the home, that defendant has committed only one act of home invasion because there was only one entry. Cole, 172 Ill. 2d at 101-02. In Cole, there was only one defendant and, thus, only one entry. The Cole rule has no application here, where there was more than one entry. Defendant was convicted of one count of home invasion for his illegal entry and beating of Stewart. He was convicted of his second count of home invasion based upon his accountability for his accomplice’s illegal entry and beating of Edmonds. The majority’s reliance on Sims is also unavailing. In Sims, the defendant and his accomplice unlawfully entered a home and, once inside, two deaths resulted. Sims, 167 Ill. 2d at 491, 523. Although the facts in Sims may be considered similar to the facts of this case, Sims is inapposite nonetheless. On appeal in Sims the defendant argued that one of his two home invasion convictions must be vacated because the evidence had proved only one illegal entry into the dwelling. Sims, 167 Ill. 2d at 522-23. He contended that “ ‘a defendant can stand convicted of only one count of home invasion where there was only one entry regardless of the number of victims.’ ” Sims, 167 Ill. 2d at 523, quoting People v. McDarrah, 175 Ill. App. 3d 284, 300 (1988). The State conceded error on this point, and this court vacated one count of home invasion. Sims, 167 Ill. 2d at 523. In Sims, however, there is no indication that the parties raised or that this court considered the issue of whether there could be two separate entries based on an accomplice liability theory. Unlike in Sims, the jury in the case at bar was given clear instructions and argument regarding defendant’s accountability for the criminal actions of his accomplice. The issue in this case thus goes beyond the scope of the issue set forth in Sims. Therefore, Sims does not support the majority’s holding. For the reasons stated above, defendant’s two convictions for home invasion are proper. The appellate court’s judgment should be affirmed. JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this dissent.