Court Opinion

ID: 9741385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:54:34.979259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.368749
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, dissenting: I reluctantly dissent. The majority opinion reaches a commonsense result. The trial court wanted defendant to have a 12-year sentence. That judge is no fool — he did not want defendant to have a four-year sentence and be released in two years. He followed our (erroneous) interpretation of section 5 — 8—4(a) of the Code. A sentence on each offense of 12 years under our previous ruling would have resulted in a 36-year term. The defendant was originally sentenced on each of three different counts. These three offenses each occurred on separate occasions. The sentence for each offense was four years. Section 5 — 5—4 prohibits increasing a sentence, after review, "for the same offense.” (730 ILCS 5/5—5—4 (West 1992).) How can we allow a 12-year sentence for any one of the three original offenses? Did not this defendant benefit from our earlier "mistaken” interpretation of section 5 — 8—4(a)?