{ "id": 725378, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. DAVID SMITH, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Smith", "decision_date": "2000-12-01", "docket_number": "No. 86775", "first_page": "179", "last_page": "209", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "195 Ill. 2d 179" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 385536 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/178/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 Ill. 2d 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 963678 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374-75" }, { "page": "375" }, { "page": "376" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/193/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 Ill. 2d 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 783176 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "166" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/161/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 Ill. 2d 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 307265 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "166" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/168/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 Ill. 2d 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 909160 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490-91" }, { "page": "490-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/169/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 Ill. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1224783 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354-55" }, { "page": "354-55" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/189/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 Ill. App. 3d 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5148374 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" }, { "page": "600" }, { "page": "597" }, { "page": "597" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/239/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 Ill. 2d 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3236611 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/142/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 Ill. 2d 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1224818 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127-28" }, { "page": "127" }, { "page": "128" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/189/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 Ill. 2d 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 909170 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/169/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 Ill. 2d 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 229715 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/191/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 2d 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3167257 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27" }, { "page": "31" }, { "page": "31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/111/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S. Ct. 32", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 L. Ed. 2d 5", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "506 U.S. 802", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11925536, 11925668, 11925574, 11925643, 11925554, 11925523, 11925618, 11925597 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/506/0802-02", "/us/506/0802-08", "/us/506/0802-04", "/us/506/0802-07", "/us/506/0802-03", "/us/506/0802-01", "/us/506/0802-06", "/us/506/0802-05" ] }, { "cite": "145 Ill. 2d 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5596222 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71" }, { "page": "86" }, { "page": "87" }, { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/145/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 453252 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328-29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/192/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 Ill. 2d 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 229709 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/191/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 Ill. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1096304 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174-75" }, { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/194/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 Ill. 2d 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1131035 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" }, { "page": "435" }, { "page": "435", "parenthetical": "and cases cited therein" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/187/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 385528 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73-74" }, { "page": "74" }, { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/178/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 Ill. 2d 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 243850 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93" }, { "page": "93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/186/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 U.S. 668", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6204802 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "686-87" }, { "page": "692-93" }, { "page": "2063-64" }, { "page": "687" }, { "page": "693" }, { "page": "2064" }, { "page": "694" }, { "page": "698" }, { "page": "2068" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/466/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209962 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 2d 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 864527 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427-28" }, { "page": "428" }, { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/182/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 2d 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 864533 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" }, { "page": "502" }, { "page": "502" }, { "page": "503" }, { "page": "502-03", "parenthetical": "issues that could have been presented on direct appeal but were not, are waived" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/182/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 Ill. 2d 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 544855 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/176/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 U.S. 719", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11730774 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/504/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 Ill. 2d 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5603261 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" }, { "page": "245" }, { "page": "245-46" }, { "page": "269" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/152/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 Ill. 2d 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 121977 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/185/0179-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1520, "char_count": 47553, "ocr_confidence": 0.795, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.039612907487973e-07, "percentile": 0.7475939716948748 }, "sha256": "463282918649e6082a63d52e526b2904d04e1070662f2742c17de84f62f9ea34", "simhash": "1:aa144d605ae0d4d1", "word_count": 7590 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:27:15.890678+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. DAVID SMITH, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McMORROW\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, David Smith, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing his amended petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Because defendant was sentenced to death for the underlying convictions, his appeal lies directly to this court. 134 Ill. 2d R. 651(a). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.\nBACKGROUND\nThis court has previously set forth the evidence presented at defendant\u2019s trial in our opinion on defendant\u2019s first direct appeal. See People v. Smith, 152 Ill. 2d 229 (1992). Therefore, we discuss only those facts and evidence necessary to the disposition of this appeal. Defendant\u2019s convictions arise from the murder of Lisa Ferguson. On the evening of March 17, 1987, defendant entered the home where the victim was staying, and beat, strangled and stabbed her multiple times, while her four-year-old cousin hid in a bedroom. In addition, defendant sexually penetrated the victim\u2019s anus. Defendant was subsequently arrested and provided a statement in which he admitted killing the victim. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and home invasion. At a separate sentencing hearing, the same jury found defendant eligible for the death penalty, and further found that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the imposition of the death penalty. Defendant was sentenced to death.\nOn direct appeal, this court affirmed defendant\u2019s convictions, but vacated defendant\u2019s sentence and remanded the cause for a new sentencing hearing, due to the circuit court\u2019s failure to \u201clife-qualify\u201d the jury, pursuant to Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 119 L. Ed. 2d 492, 112 S. Ct. 2222 (1992). Smith, 152 Ill. 2d at 274. On remand, defendant waived a jury for sentencing and the same judge that presided over defendant\u2019s trial again imposed the death penalty for defendant\u2019s murder conviction. This court affirmed defendant\u2019s death sentence. People v. Smith, 176 Ill. 2d 217, 261 (1997). On December 21, 1995, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 1998)). Thereafter, on December 6, 1997, defendant filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After hearing arguments, the circuit court denied defendant\u2019s petition without an evidentiary hearing.\nANALYSIS\nThe Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides a remedy to criminal defendants who claim that substantial violations of their federal or state constitutional rights occurred in their original trial or sentencing hearing. People v. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d 491, 502 (1998). An action for post-conviction relief is not an appeal from the underlying judgment, but rather a collateral proceeding. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502. A post-conviction proceeding allows inquiry into constitutional issues involved in the conviction and sentence that have not been, and could not have been, adjudicated previously on direct appeal. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502.\nA defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition as a matter of right. People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 427-28 (1998). Rather, an evidentiary hearing is warranted only where the allegations of the post-conviction petition, supported where appropriate by the trial record or accompanying affidavits, make a substantial showing that the defendant\u2019s constitutional rights have been violated. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d at 428. In determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, all well-pled facts in the petition and any accompanying affidavits are taken as true. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 503. A trial court\u2019s dismissal of a post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing is reviewed de novo. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 389 (1998).\nI. Timeliness of Post-Conviction Petition\nThe State contends in its brief that defendant did not file his petition within the time limitations prescribed by the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 1998)). At oral arguments, however, the State conceded that defendant did, in fact, file his petition in a timely manner. Therefore, we do not address this issue.\nII. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel\nDefendant raises a series of challenges to his trial counsel\u2019s performance. A defendant is guaranteed the effective assistance of counsel at trial and at a death sentencing hearing. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686-87, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 692-93, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64 (1984). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove both deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693, 104 S. Ct. at 2064.\nIn order to satisfy the deficient-performance prong of Strickland, a defendant must show that his counsel\u2019s performance was so inadequate that counsel was not functioning as the \u201ccounsel\u201d guaranteed by the sixth amendment. Counsel\u2019s performance is measured by an objective standard of competence under prevailing professional norms. Further, in order to establish deficient performance, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction may have been the product of sound trial strategy. People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83, 93 (1999); People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65, 73-74 (1997). Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 432 (1999).\nIn order to establish prejudice, a defendant must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel\u2019s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. A reasonable probability is defined as a probability that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Thus, the defendant must show that counsel\u2019s deficient performance rendered the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d at 93; Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d at 74. A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test. People v. Mahaffey, 194 Ill. 2d 154, 174-75 (2000). If a defendant cannot establish that he suffered prejudice, a court need not determine whether counsel\u2019s performance was constitutionally deficient. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d at 74.\nA. Pretrial Errors\nDefendant maintains that his counsel was ineffective in presenting his motion to suppress a statement that defendant gave at police headquarters on the night of March 17, 1987, in which he confessed to the murder of Lisa Ferguson.\nDefendant contends that his counsel failed to introduce corroborating testimony relating to the claim that his confession was coerced. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress defendant\u2019s statement, arguing that it was coerced. In support of this motion, defense counsel offered testimony from Josephine Palomino, defendant\u2019s girlfriend. She stated:\n\u201cI heard David Smith [at the police station]. He was yelling, screaming. He was swearing, telling the police officers \u2014 well, I would take it for granted it was the police officers \u2014 to leave him alone, not to touch him, to get away from him, and he was calling for me. I want to talk to Josie. I want to talk to Josie. I want to see Josie.\u201d\nIn denying the motion, the trial judge stated:\n\u201cThere is absolutely no evidence indicating that there was any physical abuse in this case, and I think that the pictures [of defendant] bear this out, that there was no physical abuse seen in those photographs. *** Assuming arguendo that there were loud voices raised *** the Petitioner does not by this type of testimony meet his burden indicating that *** the statement was not freely and voluntarily given.\nWhere a defendant has made a statement and later has had an opportunity to reflect on that statement and consult with his advisors, be they attorneys or other people he comes into contact with, he shortly realizes that his mere denial is not going to be enough. He must show something else.\nWell, I don\u2019t think that there is any evidence in this case that the statement was other than free and voluntary.\u201d\nDefendant now argues that the trial judge\u2019s decision would have been different had defense counsel offered additional evidence from Rose Palomino, Josephine Palomino\u2019s mother. At trial, Rose Palomino testified: \u201cI heard [defendant] yelling for Josie, calling her name, let me see Josie, let me see Josie, and he said, get your \u2018F\u2019ing hands off of me.\u201d\nThis argument is waived. Rose Palomino\u2019s testimony was part of the record on direct appeal. Accordingly, this claim could have been raised at that time. See Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502-03 (issues that could have been presented on direct appeal but were not, are waived). However, defendant contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal.\nClaims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are measured against the same standard as those dealing with ineffective assistance of trial counsel. West, 187 Ill. 2d at 435. \u201cA defendant who contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance, e.g., by failing to argue an issue, must show that the failure to raise that issue was objectively unreasonable and that the decision prejudiced the defendant. Appellate counsel is not obligated to brief every conceivable issue on appeal, and it is not incompetence of counsel to refrain from raising issues which, in his or her judgment, are without merit, unless counsel\u2019s appraisal of the merits is patently wrong. Accordingly, unless the underlying issues are meritorious, defendant has suffered no prejudice from counsel\u2019s failure to raise them on appeal. People v. Childress, 191 Ill. 2d 168, 175 (2000); People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 435 (1999) (and cases cited therein).\u201d People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 328-29 (2000).\nIn examining the claim on the merits, however, we find that defendant\u2019s argument fails. The trial judge was clear in his finding that, even assuming that there were \u201cloud voices raised,\u201d such evidence did not satisfy defendant\u2019s burden of proof to show that his statement was not freely and voluntarily given. Rose Palomino\u2019s testimony does not significantly differ from Josephine Palomino\u2019s testimony and is merely cumulative. Thus, based on the trial judge\u2019s statements, we do not believe that this additional testimony by Rose Palomino would have convinced the trial judge that defendant met his burden in showing that his statement was not voluntary. There was no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress would have been different. Defendant has therefore failed to establish that he suffered prejudice as required by Strickland, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.\nWith regard to the same suppression hearing, defendant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present testimony that defendant was under the influence of phencyclidine (PCP) at the time he gave his statement, and that counsel failed to present expert testimony relating to the effects of PCE To support the argument that he was, in fact, under the influence of PCP when he made his statement at the police station, defendant attaches the affidavits of two friends who were with defendant on the day of the murder, Efren Ramirez and Manuel Ramirez. In addition, defendant attaches an affidavit from Dr. Bruce Perry discussing how use of PCP could have affected defendant\u2019s ability to make a free and voluntary statement.\nThe affidavits on which defendant relies to support the argument that he was under the influence of PCP are insufficient to make a substantial showing that his right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated. In these affidavits, defendant\u2019s friends stated that, on the day of the murder, they drank alcohol and smoked marijuana with defendant. Manuel Ramirez stated that \u201cEddie had mentioned\u201d that PCP was present in the marijuana. Edward Ramirez stated that \u201cthere was PCP in the pot, you could taste it. I can tell the difference blindfolded.\u201d Thus, evidence of defendant\u2019s alleged PCP inhalation boils down to Edward Ramirez\u2019s contention that defendant inhaled PCP because Edward \u201ccan tell the difference [between marijuana and PCP] blindfolded.\u201d We reject defendant\u2019s claim that these affidavits \u201cclearly prove\u201d that defendant had ingested PCP at the time of the murder. To the contrary, we find that the statement that Edward Ramirez \u201ccan tell the difference blindfolded\u201d is speculative and insufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of PCP Thus, even if defendant\u2019s counsel would have presented the testimony of these two friends of defendant, we do not believe the result of the suppression hearing would have differed. Defendant has not established that he suffered prejudice from his counsel\u2019s failure to present the testimony of Efren Ramirez and Manuel Ramirez. Therefore, defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.\nDefendant next claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present any evidence in support of a motion counsel filed to suppress additional statements made by defendant at his apartment. At the suppression hearing on this motion, Officer Daniel Simon and Detectives John McCann and John Koclanis testified that, after leaving the crime scene on March 17, 1987, they proceeded to defendant\u2019s apartment as part of their homicide investigation. When they arrived at defendant\u2019s building, Officer Simon and his partner walked through a gangway and heard an argument between a woman, later identified as Josephine Palomino, and a man, later identified as defendant. They went through a door at the rear of the building which led into a vestibule area. At that time, the officers heard the following conversation:\n\u201cFemale: \u2018Where have you been tonight?\u2019\nMale: T have been out.\u2019\nFemale: \u2018Where have you been tonight?\u2019\nMale: \u2018I saw someone get killed tonight.\u2019\nFemale: \u2018Your clothes are all full of blood, are all full of blood. You had something to do with it.\u2019\nMale: \u2018I did it.\u2019 \u201d\nOn defendant\u2019s first direct appeal, he argued that these statements should have been suppressed because the officers violated the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution when they listened to this conversation outside of defendant\u2019s apartment door. We held that no fourth amendment \u201csearch\u201d occurred because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation. Smith, 152 Ill. 2d at 245. We found that: (1) the area where the officers overhead the conversation was a common area; (2) the area where the officers were standing when they overhead the conversation was unlocked; (3) defendant\u2019s voice was raised; and (4) the officers used no artificial means to enhance their ability to hear, nor did they enter an area where they had no legal right to be. Smith, 152 Ill. 2d at 245-46.\nDefendant now claims that his counsel should have introduced testimony from Josephine Palomino at the suppression hearing. In support of this claim, defendant has attached an affidavit from Josephine Palomino to his post-conviction petition, in which she states that defendant never said \u201cI did it.\u201d Palomino also states that the apartment door was \u201calways locked.\u201d Defendant now argues that had this testimony been introduced at the suppression hearing, the statement made at the apartment would have been suppressed.\nWe find that, even if defendant\u2019s statement \u201cI did it\u201d was suppressed, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant\u2019s trial would have been different. Defendant made another statement at the police station confessing to the murder of Lisa Ferguson which included more detail than the mere statement \u201cI did it.\u201d That statement was written by an assistant State\u2019s Attorney, signed by defendant and introduced at trial. As we noted in our opinion on defendant\u2019s direct appeal, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming. See Smith, 152 Ill. 2d at 269. In light of the fact that this was not a closely balanced case, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant\u2019s trial would have been different had the challenged statement never been admitted. Therefore, we find that defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the claimed error. Mahaffey, 194 Ill. 2d at 179.\nB. Trial Errors\na. Intoxication Defense\nDefendant next contends that his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present evidence that would have supported an intoxication defense at trial. Defendant claims that had trial counsel presented testimony as to defendant\u2019s drugged and intoxicated condition on the night of the murder, he would have had a basis for an affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication or a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. According to defendant, \u201ctestimony regarding [defendant\u2019s] drug and alcohol ingestion would have established the defense of voluntary intoxication and would have reduced [defendant\u2019s] legal culpability for the alleged crime.\u201d\nIn support of this argument, defendant offers the affidavits of Efren Ramirez and Manuel Ramirez, as well as an affidavit from Edward Ramirez. As we have discussed previously in this opinion, the affidavits of Edward and Manuel Ramirez are insufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of POP at the time of the murder. Moreover, while Edward Ramirez\u2019s affidavit states that he and defendant smoked marijuana on the day of the murder, it does not mention anything about POP Thus, we do not agree with defendant\u2019s claim that the evidence contained in these three affidavits \u201cestablishes] \u201d that defendant was under the influence of marijuana and PCP Rather, we find that the evidence that defendant was under the influence of PCP is speculative and inconclusive.\nMoreover, even if defendant had conclusively established that he had taken PCP on the day of the murder, the evidence would have been insufficient to support an affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication. In People v. Jackson, 145 Ill. 2d 43 (1991), vacated on other grounds, 506 U.S. 802, 121 L. Ed. 2d 5, 113 S. Ct. 32 (1992), the defendant claimed that he used cocaine and heroin on the night that he committed several murders, and that he used PCF marijuana and heroin the following day. Jackson, 145 Ill. 2d at 71. A defense expert testified to the effects of the drugs. On appeal, this court held that it did not believe that any rational jury would have found the defendant\u2019s attempt to raise an intoxication defense credible. Jackson, 145 Ill. 2d at 86. We found that the defendant was presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his acts and that such a presumption was supported by the defendant\u2019s written and oral statements in which he stated his intent to kill the victim. Jackson, 145 Ill. 2d at 87. We also noted that the detail of defendant\u2019s recall in his statements to the police showed that he was acutely aware of his surroundings. Finally, we found that those who observed defendant on the night of the crimes stated that he appeared to have no difficulty speaking or walking. Thus, we held that the jury would not have believed that the defendant was not capable of acting intentionally. Jackson, 145 Ill. 2d at 87.\nSimilarly, in this case, even if the jury believed that defendant had used PCP on the day of the murder, we cannot conclude that the jury would have found that defendant did not intend to cause the death of the victim. In his statement to the police, defendant stated that he initially went to the apartment where the victim was staying to steal a VCR. When he learned that the victim was home, he left. Defendant stated that he then \u201cwalked around for a while *** then decided to go back to the apartment,\u201d and that \u201che didn\u2019t know why he went back up to the apartment except that he must have intended to kill [the victim].\u201d Defendant was able to recall the events of the murder when giving his statement.\nFurther, those who were with defendant on the night of the murder stated that he did not appear overly intoxicated. Max Ferguson, the victim\u2019s brother, testified that he saw defendant at Bucko\u2019s tavern on the evening of the murder and he did not see him slurring his speech, swaggering or stumbling, but that he only noticed that defendant was \u201cbeing loud.\u201d Carlos Moya testified that on the evening of the murder, although defendant appeared to be \u201cunder the influence\u201d of alcohol because his words were not completely clear, he did not appear to be intoxicated. Juanita Soto testified that defendant was at a bar before the murder and that defendant was \u201cfeeling good,\u201d \u201csomewhat intoxicated,\u201d and that \u201cyou could say\u201d that he was slurring his words, but that he was not stumbling or swaying. Officer Simon, one of the patrol officers who assisted in the homicide investigation, testified that around 10 p.m. on the night of the murder, defendant did not appear intoxicated, but rather \u201cseemed normal in every respect. There was no slurred speech, no bloodshot eyes *** no staggering or stumbling\u201d and no smell of alcohol. Officer Simon stated that defendant did not appear to be under the influence of any drugs. Finally, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney who took and drafted defendant\u2019s statement on the night of the murder wrote that defendant appeared to be free from the effects of alcohol and drugs and testified that, while he did not specifically ask defendant, \u201cthere was no overt notice\u201d that defendant was under the influence.\nDefendant relies on People v. Wright, 111 Ill. 2d 18 (1986). Wright, however, is inapposite to the case at bar. In Wright, evidence existed to show that the defendant was not guilty of murder, of which she was convicted, but rather of involuntary manslaughter due to her intoxication at the time that she shot and killed her daughter. Wright, 111 Il. 2d at 29. At the evidentiary hearing on defendant\u2019s petition for post-conviction relief, defendant\u2019s attorney testified that he did not raise the defense of intoxication because he thought that \u201cthe defense of drunkenness *** is that you have to be drunk to the extent that you have no recall of the facts.\u201d We found that this was a misapprehension of the law and was not the result of trial tactics or strategy. Wright, 111 Ill. 2d at 27. Moreover, at the evidentiary hearing on defendant\u2019s post-conviction petition, the trial judge stated that \u201c \u2018the outcome would have been different, and I can say with a certainty because I heard the case, the outcome would have been different had I heard the evidence that I heard today. I would have rendered a judgment of guilty of involuntary manslaughter.\u2019 \u201d Wright, 111 Ill. 2d at 31. We determined that this was a \u201cclassic demonstration\u201d that, but for counsel\u2019s deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been different. Wright, 111 Ill. 2d at 31.\nUnlike Wright, nothing in the case at bar suggests that defendant\u2019s counsel misunderstood the law regarding voluntary intoxication. There was simply not enough evidence to support a defense of voluntary intoxication.\nAny evidence with regard to defendant\u2019s intoxication is speculative and inconclusive. In fact, the majority of the evidence tends to show that defendant was not intoxicated when he committed the murder. Therefore, we do not find Wright to be pertinent to the case at bar.\nIn light of all of the evidence, we believe that, as in Jackson, evidence of defendant\u2019s intent is apparent. Defendant has not established that he suffered prejudice from his counsel\u2019s failure to present evidence in support of a voluntary intoxication defense, as required by Strickland. Even if defendant\u2019s counsel had offered the evidence that defendant seeks, we cannot conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.\nb. Insanity Defense\nIn a related argument, defendant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to present an insanity defense. In support of this contention, defendant attaches an affidavit from Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist with a degree in neuropharmacology, which states that, in his opinion, defendant \u201cwas intoxicated with drugs (especially PCP); he was responding to internal processes without adequate ties to reality. In essence he was operating under a condition of extreme mental disturbance,\u201d and that his judgment was \u201cseverely impaired\u201d at the time of the murder. Defendant argues that this affidavit, in combination with the evidence that defense counsel presented at the resentencing hearing, supports the contention that his counsel should have requested a bifurcated trial and presented an insanity defense along with the defense theory presented at trial.\nAt defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing, Dr. George Savarese, a licensed clinical social worker who completed a comprehensive psycho-social developmental history of defendant, testified that, based on two interviews with defendant and review of interviews with his family and friends, he concluded that defendant had a \u201cborderline personality disorder.\u201d Savarese further testified that it was \u201cvery feasible that [defendant] could have slipped into [a] transient psychotic state\u201d during the murder. In describing what a \u201ctransient psychotic state\u201d is, Savarese stated:\n\u201can individual can decompensate into a psychotic state *** they\u2019re on a continuum from obviously normal to actually insane, and most individuals fall somewhere in the middle probably *** although borderline is not psychotic, particularly in and of itself, [an individual with borderline personality disorder] can slip into a psychotic state where they\u2019re completed detached at least for a limited amount of time from reality.\u201d\nThis evidence does not constitute a substantial insanity defense. The Criminal Code of 1961 states that \u201c[a] person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 2(a) (West 1998). Though the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offense charged, \u201cthe burden of proof is on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 2(e) (West 1998).\nIn People v. Wilson, 191 Ill. 2d 363 (2000), the defendant claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an insanity defense. Evidence suggested that defendant suffered from epilepsy, was probably mildly retarded and may have been suffering from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murder. We held that the sum of this evidence would not have placed a reasonable attorney on notice that an insanity defense was viable because \u201cnothing in defendant\u2019s records provides any indication that his mental problems would meet the definition of legal insanity.\u201d Wilson, 191 Ill. 2d at 372.\nAs in Wilson, we find that defendant\u2019s \u201cborderline personality disorder\u201d does not rise to the level of insanity. In order to enter the apartment where the victim was staying, defendant pretended to be the victim\u2019s brother. After committing the murder, defendant went to his apartment and tried to wash the blood out of his clothes. Clearly, this is a person who appreciated the criminality of his conduct. Therefore, we find that defendant\u2019s counsel was not ineffective for failing to present an insanity defense.\nc. Prosecution Closing Argument\nNext, defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a portion of the State\u2019s closing argument during defendant\u2019s trial. Though this argument is waived due to defendant\u2019s failure to raise it on direct appeal, defendant avoids the waiver rule by arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for raising the issue on appeal. See People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d 355, 371-72 (1996).\nAfter the murder, the victim was found lying face-down on the kitchen floor of the apartment where she was staying. Her shirt was pulled above her waist and her pants and underwear were pulled away from her body and caught around her right ankle. The victim\u2019s naked buttocks were lying on a curling iron.\nDuring closing argument, the prosecution stated: \u201cCounsel makes a big tado [sic] about why the curling iron was not uncovered. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you in their wildest dreams after all their years of experience, would [sic] never have thought this curling iron could have been used in such a horrible fashion as this Defendant used it. So that perhaps using hindsight, the curling iron has become more important than it was then, but you can insure [sic], ladies and gentleman, this is not an ordinary situation, this is not an ordinary way to use a curling iron.\u201d\nDefendant argues that because the State presented no evidence that \u201cconclusively established\u201d that defendant forcibly penetrated the victim\u2019s anus with a curling iron, the argument was improper.\nA prosecutor is given great latitude in making closing arguments. People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 127-28 (2000). A prosecutor may comment on the evidence and all reasonable inferences stemming from the evidence. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 127. An argument that serves no purpose other than to inflame the jury, however, is error. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 128.\nAt trial, Dr. Nancy Jones, a forensic pathologist who examined the victim\u2019s body after her death testified: \u201cA laceration is a tear of the skin caused by separation and pulling. These were located around the circumference of [the victim\u2019s] anus. While checking the anus, I noticed that it was gaping; that there was some bloody fluid within the opening and also that there was a tear or laceration inside the anus in the mucosa or the lining surface of the rectum.\u201d Jones also testified that the victim\u2019s injuries would be consistent with a forced entry of the anus by an object such as a curling iron, an object of the same shape or size as a curling iron, or a penis.\nIn addition, the State introduced several pictures of the victim. In those pictures, the victim is lying facedown on the floor, with her shirt pulled above her waist, her jeans and underwear pulled away from her body and caught around her right ankle, and her lower torso and buttocks lying on a curling iron. Officer Sharon Gaynor, one of the first police officers to arrive at the scene, testified that she found the victim in that manner.\nFrom the record, the statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument were a reasonable inference from the evidence. Jones testified that the victim\u2019s injuries were consistent with forced entry of the victim\u2019s anus by a curling iron. Further, photographs published to the jury showed the victim\u2019s lower torso and buttocks lying on a curling iron.\nDefendant\u2019s reliance on People v. Linscott, 142 Ill. 2d 22 (1991), and People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d 593 (1992), is misplaced. In Linscott, the State introduced evidence that the defendant\u2019s hairs were consistent with hairs found at the scene of the crime. The State\u2019s witness stated that one could not determine from whose head the hair found at the crime scene came, but only that the hair was consistent with the defendant\u2019s hair. In total, three witnesses testified that they could not conclusively identify the hairs as coming from the defendant. In closing argument, however, the prosecutor argued repeatedly that the defendant\u2019s hair was found in the victim\u2019s apartment and on her body. This court held that, because there was no evidence to support these statements, the prosecution\u2019s argument was improper.\nIn People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d 593 (1992), the prosecutor clearly misstated the evidence adduced at trial. The prosecutor stated in closing argument that there was a \u201cdefinite match\u201d between tire marks found near the scene of the crime and the tires belonging to the defendant\u2019s car. The testimony at trial did not establish that the tire prints \u201cmatched,\u201d but only that they resembled each other. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d at 599. Moreover, the prosecutor stated that blood found on a glove in the defendant\u2019s car belonged to the victim. The testimony at trial, however, did not establish that the blood came from the victim, but rather that the blood could have come from the victim or 40% of the general population. The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the passions of the jurors and argued the defendant\u2019s convictions to show propensity, when those convictions were introduced at trial for the limited purpose of impeachment. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d at 600. The court noted that, when viewed separately, the comments would not constitute reversible error. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d at 597. However, the court found that the totality of the improper comments did constitute reversible error. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d at 597.\nUnlike the situations in Linscott and McCollum, the prosecutor in the case at bar did not misstate the evidence. The prosecutor argued reasonable inferences that were supported by the evidence adduced at trial. Therefore, defendant\u2019s appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this argument on appeal.\nC. Sentencing Errors\nWith regard to sentencing, defendant first contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation testimony at his resentencing hearing. Initially, defendant contends that his counsel failed to investigate and present evidence that defendant was under the influence of PCP on the day of the murder and evidence relating to the effects of PCE In support of the argument that he was under the influence of PCP at the time of the murder, defendant again offers the affidavits of the three friends who were with defendant on the day of the murder, Manuel Ramirez, Efren Ramirez and Edward Ramirez.\nWe initially note that defendant\u2019s claim that trial counsel \u201cdid not even speak to any of the individuals that [defendant] was with that day\u201d is not entirely correct. Manuel Ramirez states in his affidavit that he spoke with investigators working for defense counsel. Efren and Edward Ramirez do not state whether or not they spoke with defense counsel or his team. Therefore, we cannot assume that defense counsel failed to interview these witnesses.\nFurther, as we have concluded, the affidavits from defendant\u2019s friends regarding his alleged use of PCP is speculative and insufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of PCE George Savarese testified at defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing that defendant\u2019s friend Efren Ramirez mentioned that defendant had smoked marijuana that was laced with PCP on the day of the murder. Thus, in addition to being speculative, the evidence that defendant claims was lacking is cumulative. Accordingly, we find that, even if the judge had heard the additional evidence from defendant\u2019s friends, there is no reasonable probability that the result of defendant\u2019s sentencing would have been different. See, e.g., People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d 312, 354-55 (2000); People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d 472, 490-91 (1996). Defendant cannot establish that he suffered prejudice as a result of counsel\u2019s failure to present additional evidence of defendant\u2019s PCP use on the day of the murder, and, as a result, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. Thus, defendant has failed to establish that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence as to the effects of PCE\nDefendant also claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing \u201cto present a complete picture of David Smith\u2019s tumultuous upbringing\u201d at defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing. Specifically, defendant claims that counsel should have presented evidence that: (1) defendant\u2019s father disciplined him by whipping him; (2) defendant was physically and verbally abused by his stepmother; (3) at the age of 10, defendant engaged in a sexual relationship with his 18-year-old baby-sitter; (4) defendant was forced to take baths with his siblings as an adolescent; (5) when defendant was sent to a detention center, he did not want to return home; and (6) defendant\u2019s brother introduced him to drugs, including PCP, when defendant was 15 years of age. Defendant points to new affidavits from his sister, his father and the mother of his son that establish these facts.\nWe disagree with defendant\u2019s contention that his trial counsel failed to present a complete picture of defendant\u2019s upbringing. At defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing, his counsel and the State stipulated to the testimony of defendant\u2019s brother, James Smith, which was given at defendant\u2019s first sentencing hearing. James Smith testified that their stepmother did not love them like she loved her own children, that \u201cthe punishments were a little different,\u201d that she struck all the children, including defendant, and that she hit them with a broom handle. Moreover, he testified that defendant liked the juvenile detention center where he was sent more than his home. With regard to defendant\u2019s drug use, James Smith testified that defendant drank, smoked marijuana and took \u201cacid\u201d beginning in late junior high school or early high school and that he was personally aware of defendant\u2019s use of PCP from 17 years of age on. Defendant\u2019s mother also testified to his marijuana and acid use.\nDuring defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing, Savarese testified to a comprehensive psychosocial developmental history of the defendant which he completed. To complete that evaluation, Savarese reviewed interviews with defendant\u2019s mother, father, half-brother and sister. He testified that, according to defendant\u2019s siblings, defendant\u2019s father was \u201cvery abusive\u201d and that \u201cthere was physical abuse.\u201d\nSavarese also testified that defendant\u2019s father admitted that he beat defendant with a belt on his back and legs, and that defendant\u2019s sister stated that their stepmother would hit defendant with a board, one time even breaking it on him. He also testified that defendant\u2019s sister stated that \u201cwe had to take baths in pairs up until the time that I was 15 years old.\u201d Finally, Savarese testified about defendant\u2019s drug use, stating that defendant \u201chad been experimenting early on with drugs in the beginning around 11 or 12 years old, and that he had used a variety of substance, anything from LSD, PCP, marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, heroin, acid, hallucinogenic mushrooms.\u201d\nThe evidence offered at defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing establishes that defense counsel presented a complete picture of defendant\u2019s upbringing. The information that defendant claims was lacking was presented through the testimony of his brother and Savarese. Any additional testimony regarding defendant\u2019s childhood would have been cumulative. There is no reasonable probability that introduction of this cumulative evidence would have altered the result of defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing. See, e.g., Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d at 354-55; Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d at 490-91. Thus, defendant\u2019s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel fails.\nDefendant next claims ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial counsel\u2019s failure to investigate and present witnesses to rebut aggravating evidence of defendant\u2019s conduct while incarcerated. Defendant argues that two employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Charles Margherio and Robert Ellinger, should have been called to testify to defendant\u2019s positive behavior in prison. Specifically, defendant presents affidavits from those two employees which state that: (1) defendant exhibited good behavior, was polite, did not cause problems, and showed respect for authority; (2) Margherio never wrote defendant a disciplinary ticket; and (3) Margherio believed that defendant could adjust well to incarceration and would not be a danger to other inmates.\nAt defendant\u2019s resentencing hearing, his counsel and the State stipulated to the testimony of Timothy Martin, a jail supervisor who testified at defendant\u2019s first sentencing hearing. Martin testified that defendant was a volunteer worker in the prison, that his work was satisfactory, that he got along with the other volunteer workers, that he was polite, courteous, helpful, and cooperative, and that he was not involved in a gang, but rather associated with other inmates who stayed out of trouble. Martin also stated that he never wrote defendant a disciplinary ticket, that defendant became a Christian while in prison, that he attended Bible studies and \u201cwitnessed\u201d his faith to other inmates, and that he kept himself and his area neat. Finally, Martin testified that, in his opinion, defendant would be able to succeed in an institutionalized setting.\nAgain, we find that the evidence defendant claims was lacking is cumulative. Martin testified to everything that Charles Margherio and Robert Ellinger stated in their affidavits. In fact, Martin testified to much more than defendant\u2019s cooperation and good behavior. He presented evidence on defendant\u2019s new commitment to Christianity while incarcerated and his lack of gang activity. We find that, due to the cumulative nature of this evidence, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant\u2019s proceeding would have been different had his counsel introduced it. Therefore, defendant\u2019s counsel was not ineffective for failing to present this additional evidence.\nDefendant relies on People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138 (1995), and People v. Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d 148 (1994), to support his claim that he should have received an evidentiary hearing due to his counsel\u2019s failure to introduce mitigating evidence. In Orange, defense counsel presented no witnesses in mitigation. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d at 166. Such is not the case here. Defendant\u2019s counsel here offered a significant amount of evidence in mitigation on defendant\u2019s behalf.\nMoreover, in People v. Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d 148 (1994), defense counsel presented only one witness at the defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing \u2014 the defendant\u2019s wife. Counsel in that case submitted numerous letters in support of the defendant, but those letters came from people who did not appear to know the defendant well. Significantly, in that case, the defendant submitted a number of affidavits of his family and friends who stated that they were not contacted by defense counsel prior to the sentencing hearing. Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d at 166. Here, as noted, defendant\u2019s counsel presented several witnesses on defendant\u2019s behalf at the resentencing hearing. Savarese, who testified on defendant\u2019s behalf, spoke with almost all of the potential witnesses that defendant claims could have provided mitigating evidence and offered testimony about those interviews. The evidence that defendant claims was absent fails to provide any substantial additional mitigation evidence. Rather, as indicated, much of the information in the affidavits is cumulative.\nWe cannot agree with defendant\u2019s contention that but for his counsel\u2019s failure to present evidence of other mitigating factors, defendant would not have been sentenced to death. In aggravation, the trial court heard, inter alia, that defendant stated that he was \u201cglad\u201d that the victim had died because he \u201cdidn\u2019t want her to live remembering how bad he had beaten her.\u201d Moreover, the court heard evidence that the victim suffered at least 29 blunt trauma injuries, three stab wounds, two incised wounds, numerous bruises, abrasions and hemorrhages, and anal injuries which were consistent with forcible penetration of her anus. In sentencing defendant to death, the trial judge stated that he believed this case to be \u201cexceptionally brutal\u201d and he could not remember a case where the facts were more aggravated. We find that the evidence defendant complains was lacking would have had minimal impact in defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing. Thus, even taking all of the affidavits as true, we believe that the trial court properly denied defendant an evidentiary hearing. Defendant has failed to make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were violated. People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 428 (1998).\nIII. Constitutionality of the Illinois Death Penalty Statute\nDefendant makes several arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute. The circuit court held that these claims were waived; however, defendant argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for his failure to raise these issues on direct appeal. This court has previously rejected the arguments that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional because: it fails to limit the nonstatutory aggravating factors which may be considered by the sentencing authority (see, e.g., People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 374-75 (2000); it fails to require written findings with regard to nonstatutory aggravating factors (see, e.g., People v. Cloutier, 178 Ill. 2d 141, 173-74 (1997)); it places a judicial function in the prosecutor (see, e.g., Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 375); and it shifts to the defendant the burden of proving that a sentence other than death is appropriate (see, e.g., Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 376). Defendant offers no new or compelling reasons for reconsideration of these decisions. Therefore, defendant\u2019s counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise these issues.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing defendant\u2019s amended post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. We direct the clerk of this court to enter an order setting Wednesday, March 28, 2001, as the date on which the sentence of death entered by the circuit court of Cook County shall be carried out. Defendant shall be executed in the manner provided by law. 725 ILCS 5/119 \u2014 5 (West 1996). The clerk of this court shall send a certified copy of the mandate in this case to the Director of Corrections, to the warden of Tamms Correctional Center, and to the warden of the institution where defendant is now confined.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McMORROW" }, { "text": "CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON,\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part:\nI agree that Smith\u2019s convictions should not be disturbed. In my view, however, his sentence of death cannot be allowed to stand. For the reasons set forth in my partial concurrence and partial dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), the Illinois death penalty law violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) and article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 2). Smith\u2019s sentence of death should therefore be vacated and he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 l(j) (West 1998).", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON," } ], "attorneys": [ "Steven F. Molo and llene Lin Bloom, of Winston & Strawn, and Marshall J. Hartman, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, all of Chicago, for appellant.", "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (William L. Browers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb and Barbara L. Jones, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 86775.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. DAVID SMITH, Appellant.\nOpinion filed December 1, 2000.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied April 2, 2001.\nHARRISON, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.\nSteven F. Molo and llene Lin Bloom, of Winston & Strawn, and Marshall J. Hartman, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, all of Chicago, for appellant.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (William L. Browers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb and Barbara L. Jones, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0179-01", "first_page_order": 193, "last_page_order": 223 }