Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County Honorable Daniel J. Kelley, judge Presiding.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Presiding Justice Leavitt delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant Brandon Whitney was convicted by a jury of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 1994)) and aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2) (West 1994)) in connection with the shooting death of Aaron Holmes. The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years' imprisonment on the murder charge and 15 years' imprisonment on the aggravated discharge of a firearm count, to run consecutively. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in ordering his sentences to run consecutively, rather than concurrently; (2) the trial court improperly considered an erroneous prior conviction in aggravation in sentencing defendant; and (3) the lengths of his sentences reflect an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Defendant first argues his sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively. The State argues defendant waived this issue by failing to file a written motion challenging the correctness of his sentence within 30 days of its imposition. See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 1994). The State correctly asserts section 5-8-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) was amended in August 1993 to make the filing of a post-sentencing motion a mandatory requirement to challenging sentencing issues on appeal. See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 1994) ("A defendant's challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing shall be made by a written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence"); People v. Reed, 177 Ill. 2d 389, 393-94, 686 N.E.2d 584 (1997).
However, the mandatory post-sentencing motion requirement of section 5-8-1 of the Unified Code remains subject to Supreme Court Rule 615; i.e., sentencing errors which affect substantial rights may be analyzed under the doctrine of plain error, regardless of a defendant's failure to file a post-sentencing motion. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a) ("Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court"); Reed, 177 Ill. 2d at 395; People v. Ritchey, 286 Ill. App. 3d 848, 852, 677 N.E.2d 973 (1997). The right to be lawfully sentenced is a substantial right. Ritchey, 286 Ill. App. 3d at 852. Thus, impermissible or illegal sentences may be attacked on appeal as plainly erroneous even though no post-sentencing motion was filed. Ritchey, 286 Ill. App. 3d at 852. We may, accordingly, look to see if the trial court committed plain error in ordering defendant's sentences to run consecutively in this case.
Section 5-8-4 of the Criminal Code of Corrections (Criminal Code) provides, in relevant part:
"The court shall not impose consecutive sentences for offenses which were committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective, unless, one of the offenses for which defendant was convicted was a Class X or Class 1 felony and the defendant inflicted severe bodily injury, or where the defendant was convicted of a violation of Section 12-13, 12-14, or 12-14.1 of the Criminal Code of 1961, in which event the court shall enter sentences to run consecutively." 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(a) (West 1994) (emphasis added).
Defendant in this case fired a gun into a vehicle occupied by two persons, killing the victim, Aaron Holmes. Thus, he committed two offenses (first degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm) while engaged in a single course of conduct. One of these offenses was a Class X felony (first degree murder) in which defendant inflicted severe bodily injury (the death of Holmes). Section 5-8-4 is, therefore, applicable, and the trial court clearly did not err in ordering defendant to serve these sentences consecutively. See People v. Curry, 178 Ill. 2d 509, 538-39, 687 N.E.2d 877 (1997); People v. Medrano, 282 Ill. App. 3d 887, 894-97, 669 N.E.2d 114 (1996); People v. Porter, 277 Ill. App. 3d 194, 199, 660 N.E.2d 118 (1995); People v. Williams, 263 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 1108-09, 638 N.E.2d 207 (1994); People v. Ivey, 267 Ill. App. 3d 310, 642 N.E.2d 157 (1994).
Section 5-8-4, as interpreted in Curry, requires the sentences for all triggering offenses, plus the sentence for the first non-triggering offense, to be served consecutively (subject to the maximum consecutive sentence length of section 5-8-4(c)(2)). The sentence for each additional non-triggering offense (if any) then may run concurrently to the first. Here, the sentence for the non-triggering offense committed by defendant (15 years for aggravated discharge of a firearm) must be served consecutively to his sentence on the triggering offense (50 years for murder). We note the Curry court's interpretation of section 5-8-4 leads to a somewhat anomalous result in cases such as this, where only one non-triggering offense has been committed--had defendant committed a second Class 1 or X felony causing severe bodily injury (instead of the non-triggering offense of aggravated discharge of a firearm), his sentences would be served no differently.
Defendant, relying primarily upon People v. Miller, 193 Ill. App. 3d 918, 552 N.E.2d 988 (1989), argues the use of Holmes' death--a necessary element of his murder conviction--as the "severe bodily injury" necessary for consecutive sentences amounts to "double enhancement." The reasoning of Miller has not, however, been widely followed since the decision was released. See Porter, 277 Ill. App. 3d at 198 (collecting cases reaching results contrary to Miller). We reject Miller as well. The "severe bodily injury" requirement of section 5-8-4 merely determines how one sentence will be served in relation to another; it is not used in "aggravation" of either offense. Cf., e.g., People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 269, 497 N.E.2d 1138 (1986) ("While the classification of a crime determines the sentencing range, the severity of the sentence depends upon the degree of harm caused to the victim and as such may be considered as an aggravating factor in determining the exact length of a particular sentence, even in cases where serious bodily harm is arguably implicit in the offense for which a defendant is convicted"); People v. James, 255 Ill. App. 3d 516, 531, 626 N.E.2d 1337 (1993) ("In imposing sentence upon a defendant, the trial Judge may not consider in aggravation any fact implicit in the underlying offense for which defendant was convicted") (emphasis added).
The other case relied upon by defendant, People v. Torres, 269 Ill. App. 3d 339, 645 N.E.2d 1018 (1995), did involve concurrent sentences but did not discuss the possibility of consecutive sentences. Accordingly, Torres does little to help defendant in this case.
In his second contention on appeal, defendant argues the trial judge at sentencing took into consideration a prior conviction which did not exist. The State again responds defendant waived this issue by not filing a post-sentencing motion. See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 1994). However, a defendant has a right not to be sentenced based upon improper factors in aggravation, and a trial Judge's reliance upon an improper factor in sentencing impinges upon a defendant's "fundamental right to liberty." People v. Martin, 119 Ill. 2d 453, 458, 519 N.E.2d 884 (1988); James, 255 Ill. App. 3d at 531. Hence, we may consider defendant's argument on this point under the doctrine of plain error, despite his failure to raise the issue of the non-existent conviction in a written post-sentencing motion.
On June 10, 1996, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing during which the State offered in aggravation the fact that defendant was on probation for a prior burglary conviction at the time of the murder. Defense counsel argued defendant's pre-investigation report revealed he had no prior convictions. In pronouncing defendant's sentence, the trial Judge expressly stated he was taking into consideration defendant's prior conviction.
On August 16, 1996, while the notice of appeal in this case was pending, the State brought to the attention of the trial Judge the fact that defendant had, as defense counsel had earlier contended, no prior convictions at the time of his arrest (the charge originally reported by the State had been a pending case). Defendant, who was apparently up for a status date on another case, was brought before the court and the following exchange took place:
"[Assistant State's Attorney]: Judge, can I address that other case in which the defendant has -- I remember that when I was making a comment in the course -- terms of sentence, I referred to the defendant as having been on probation at one time; and, in ...