People v. Alvarez, 58 N.E.3d 147

In July 2009 Jesse Alvarez was tried and convicted after a bench trial of five counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm, and one count of armed violence for shooting Alexander Carrera multiple times (two bullets struck Carrera; others missed).
Counts I and II alleged Alvarez personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement by shooting Carrera in the hip and thigh/knee areas; medical stipulation showed multiple buckshot fragments and puncture wounds consistent with gunshot injuries.
The trial court found Alvarez guilty on all counts and expressly found “great bodily harm and permanent disfigurement” as to counts I and II; it did not explicitly find “severe bodily injury” at that time.
At sentencing the court stated, “as previously found,” that Carrera’s injuries constituted severe bodily injury and imposed mandatory consecutive sentences on counts I and II under 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(d)(1); total aggregate sentence was 88 years. Defendant did not file a postsentencing motion but appealed.
On appeal Alvarez challenged only the portion of the sentencing ordering consecutive terms, arguing the evidence did not support a finding of severe bodily injury; the State argued forfeiture and that the trial court’s great-bodily-harm finding sufficed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences under 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(d)(1) were properly imposed because the victim suffered "severe bodily injury"	The State argued defendant forfeited the claim by not objecting and that the trial court’s finding of great bodily harm (and its sentencing statements) supports consecutive sentences	Alvarez argued the court never made the required explicit finding of "severe bodily injury," and a finding of "great bodily harm" (or the court’s isolated remarks) is insufficient; he seeks concurrent sentences	The court held: convictions and individual sentence lengths affirmed; but because the trial court never expressly found "severe bodily injury," the imposition of consecutive sentences was vacated and remanded for the trial court to determine (under the manifest-weight standard) whether severe bodily injury occurred; appellate court declined to substitute its factfinding

People v. Deleon, 227 Ill.2d 322 (Illinois 2008) (whether injury is "severe" is a factual question reviewed for manifest weight)
People v. Williams, 335 Ill. App.3d 596 (Ill. App. 2002) (distinguishes "great bodily harm" from "severe bodily injury" and instructs remand where trial court made no express severe-injury findings)
People v. Witherspoon, 379 Ill. App.3d 298 (Ill. App. 2008) (upheld use of great-bodily-harm finding to infer severe injury but reasoning rejected here)
People v. Durham, 312 Ill. App.3d 413 (Ill. App. 2000) (forfeiture and plain-error principles for unpreserved sentencing issues)