*1 THE PEOPLE OF THE ILLINOIS, STATE OF Appel
lee, ALVINE, v. RONALD R. Appellant. August Rehearing denied October
MILLER, J., joined by HEIPLE, J., dissenting. Schiedel,
Charles Deputy Defender, and Charles W. Hoffman, Assistant Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, appellant.
James E. Ryan, General, Attorney of Springfield, and (Joel Birkett, Joseph State’s Attorney, of Wheaton Ber- tocchi, Solicitor General, and William Browers and Ken- dall Mills, R. General, Assistant Attorneys of of Chicago, counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE RATHJE delivered the of the court: Defendant, Alvine, Ronald R. struck and killed a po- lice officer while to steal attempting a car. A jury (720 convicted him of both knowing murder ILCS 5/9— 1(a)(2) (West 1998)) and
1(a)(3) (West 1998)).
for sentenc
Defendant waived
him
death for
ing,
Defendant was not sentenced
knowing murder.
this court
reversed
appeal,
count. On
conviction, vacated defen
defendant’s
sentence,
and remanded
dant’s
*2
(1996) (Alvine
Alvine,
Defendant (2) remand; trial on the sentencing hearing to a new finding mental state to court did not make a sufficient (3) failed to the State penalty eligibility; death support (4) the trial sentencing; fitness for establish defendant’s sentencing from the erroneously court excluded evidence (5) at evidence improper the State elicited hearing; (6) failed to consider all evi- sentencing; the trial court (7) death penalty the Illinois mitigation; dence is unconstitutional. statute entitled whether defendant was only
We need
address
hold that he
on remand. We
to a new
Alvine
In
this court vacated defendant’s
was.
that, on
and instructed the trial court
sentence
on the felony-murder
defendant
could be sentenced
not
received a sentence.
yet
conviction for which he had
Alvine
this court’s hold
Admittedly,
Accordingly, vacate defendant’s death sentence and remand this cause to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing, at which the State seek the may imposition of the death penalty.
Vacated and remanded. MILLER, JUSTICE dissenting: *3 Unlike the I majority, do not believe that the trial judge required to conduct a new after this court reversed one of the defendant’s convic- tions for first degree and the State decided not to retry the defendant on that count. I Accordingly, dissent.
In the defendant’s prior appeal, this court determined that the defendant’s conviction on count degree for first murder, required reversal because of error in the jury instructions used at trial. remanded We the cause to the court, circuit providing the State with the ei- options of ther retrying the defendant I seeking on count or imposi- tion of a sentence on the first remaining degree count, count Our II. whether or specify not a new if the required would be State did not seek a new trial on the reversed conviction.
I believe that the trial acted judge properly the defendant on count II without sentencing hearing, new after the State decided not to previ- the defendant on count I. The defendant had ously capital sentencing purposes, waived a judge presided the same had at the defendant’s sentenc- ing hearing. judge concluded that the again imposed, death sentence should be notwithstand- ing the reversal of the defendant’s other conviction for degree brief, first murder. In his the defendant allows court, if this it believed that the death sentence was by not affected the reversal of the conviction count simply could have amended the mittimus to reflect that being imposed the death sentence was on count II. Noth- remanding decision, our earlier precluded judge court, circuit the trial from also deter- mining unnecessary that a new in the cir- cumstances reasons, shown here. For these I do not judge required believe that the trial to hold a new sentencing hearing in case, and I would therefore remaining by address the issues raised the defendant in present appeal. joins JUSTICE HEIPLE in this dissent. PUCINSKI, Petitioner, AURELIA v. THE COUNTY Respondents. al., OF COOK et July Rehearing denied October