{ "id": 3474075, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Martinez", "decision_date": "2003-07-31", "docket_number": "No. 1-01-3757", "first_page": "849", "last_page": "863", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "342 Ill. App. 3d 849" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "464 N.E.2d 1262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 Ill. App. 3d 955", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3428580 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/124/0955-01" ] }, { "cite": "502 N.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 Ill. App. 3d 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3501668 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/150/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 N.E.2d 772", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3644322 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/148/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "667 N.E.2d 600", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 972", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 150162 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/281/0972-01" ] }, { "cite": "758 N.E.2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Morgan" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 Ill. 2d 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 259041 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Morgan" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/197/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "718 N.E.2d 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 Ill. App. 3d 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 173586 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/307/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "676 N.E.2d 1011", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Serrano" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 Ill. App. 3d 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1544449 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Serrano" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/286/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "523 N.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Land" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ill. App. 3d 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3551754 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Land" }, { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/169/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "651 N.E.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"in the case of felony murder, the underlying felony is a lesser included offense because the felony is established by proof of the same or less than all of the facts required to establish the offense of the felony murder\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 913", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 252528 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "919", "parenthetical": "\"in the case of felony murder, the underlying felony is a lesser included offense because the felony is established by proof of the same or less than all of the facts required to establish the offense of the felony murder\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/272/0913-01" ] }, { "cite": "622 N.E.2d 798", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "where armed robbery was the offense underlying the felony murder charge and, therefore, a lesser included offense of felony murder, it would not support a separate conviction and sentence" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. 2d 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 777541 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "where armed robbery was the offense underlying the felony murder charge and, therefore, a lesser included offense of felony murder, it would not support a separate conviction and sentence" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/156/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "703 N.E.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "McLaurin" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ill. 2d 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 926989 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "McLaurin" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/184/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 N.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "King" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5463653 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "King" }, { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "634 N.E.2d 720", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Cardona" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 780266 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Cardona" }, { "page": "411" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/158/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 1124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5550081 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/122/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "701 N.E.2d 1097", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Smith" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209985 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Smith" }, { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "614 N.E.2d 1160", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 Ill. 2d 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4809781 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/155/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "673 N.E.2d 258", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Shatner" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 2d 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 223610 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Shatner" }, { "page": "148" }, { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/174/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "736 N.E.2d 1001", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 453255 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/192/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 N.E.2d 1290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Chandler" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 2d 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5566993 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Chandler" }, { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/129/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "643 N.E.2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 Ill. 2d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 477534 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/162/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 N.E.2d 1340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. 2d 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5555486 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/125/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "701 N.E.2d 1063", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209962 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 N.E.2d 1246", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ill. 2d 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3147214 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/104/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 U.S. 668", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6204802 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Strickland" }, { "parenthetical": "Strickland" }, { "parenthetical": "Strickland" }, { "page": "686" }, { "page": "692-93" }, { "page": "2064" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/466/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "753 N.E.2d 1089", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "to prove accountability the State must show that either: (1) defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal; or (2) there was a common criminal design" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 Ill. App. 3d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 256252 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "to prove accountability the State must show that either: (1) defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal; or (2) there was a common criminal design" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/324/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "465 N.E.2d 539", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3633652 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/125/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "728 N.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 411646 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/312/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 N.E.2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding that the phrase \"without lawful justification\" properly was omitted from the jury instruction on the definition of battery where defendant did not raise an affirmative defense of justification" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 767", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2788528 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding that the phrase \"without lawful justification\" properly was omitted from the jury instruction on the definition of battery where defendant did not raise an affirmative defense of justification" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/26/0767-01" ] }, { "cite": "634 N.E.2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 Ill. App. 3d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5371065 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/261/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 N.E.2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5403759 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 U.S. 307", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182418 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/443/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "478 N.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Collins" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3138930 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Collins" }, { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/106/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 N.E.2d 325", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821413 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "105" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "702 N.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 Ill. App. 3d 951", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 221424 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/299/0951-01" ] }, { "cite": "695 N.E.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Dekens" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 2d 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 864520 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Dekens" }, { "page": "252" }, { "page": "252" }, { "page": "252", "parenthetical": "defendant's felony murder conviction upheld where decedent was a co-felon who was killed by the intended victim of the defendant and co-felon" }, { "page": "252" }, { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/182/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 N.E.2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Hickman" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 2d 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2957904 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Hickman" }, { "page": "92" }, { "page": "94" }, { "page": "94", "parenthetical": "\"[tjhose who commit forcible felonies know they may encounter resistance, both to their affirmative actions and to any subsequent escape\"" }, { "page": "94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/59/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 A.2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 N.J. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.", "case_ids": [ 1944457 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj/73/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "687 N.E.2d 973", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Lowery" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 385575 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466", "parenthetical": "Lowery" }, { "page": "469" }, { "page": "473" }, { "page": "467" }, { "page": "470" }, { "page": "470" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/178/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 N.E.2d 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Miscichowski" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 646", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5665645 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Miscichowski" }, { "page": "653" }, { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0646-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 N.E.2d 532", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Williams" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 963", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3234790 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Williams" }, { "page": "969" }, { "page": "968-69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/80/0963-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1186, "char_count": 32173, "ocr_confidence": 0.734, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.456276954558273e-08, "percentile": 0.48503484179965706 }, "sha256": "ec40c13cfcdfe1291d48b44b2b27a5b45e1a3df2b7207a91c69e289e29f5d52a", "simhash": "1:2b6e315aec7fd1ea", "word_count": 5218 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:05.196224+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "THEIS, EJ., and KARNEZIS, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HARTMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA jury convicted defendant Juan Martinez of home invasion, residential burglary, and first-degree felony murder of his co-felon Raymond Medrano, but found him not guilty of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 30 years for first-degree felony murder and 10 years for home invasion. On appeal defendant contends that: (1) he was convicted improperly of first-degree felony murder because the shooter\u2019s actions were lawfully justified; (2) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) his conviction and 10-year sentence for home invasion must be vacated because it was a lesser included offense of felony murder.\nManuel Andrade testified that in the early morning hours of November 12, 1999, he and his roommate, Francisco Garcia, were sleeping in their apartment at 315 East Kensington. Prior to going to bed, Andrade had locked both the bolt lock and the chain on his apartment door. The only way to open the bolt lock was with a key. Andrade was awakened by the sound of someone trying to open his apartment door. He grabbed a flashlight and his gun and saw defendant and Medrano trying to enter his apartment. They already had unbolted the door and were trying to unhook the chain. When Andrade asked them what they wanted, they broke down the door and entered the apartment. Medrano, who was wearing a mask, pointed a gun at Andrade and told him to hand over his money and gun. Defendant was not wearing a mask and did not have a gun.\nAndrade ran into the kitchen and started banging pots and yelling for help. WTien Andrade tried to hide behind the refrigerator door, Medrano threw objects that were on top of the refrigerator at him. Medrano then shot at Andrade five or six times, hitting him once in the arm. Andrade shot at Medrano. Medrano then ran out of the apartment. Defendant pointed his finger at Andrade pretending that he had a gun. Andrade yelled to Garcia, who was hiding in a closet, to get his other gun. Defendant then ran. Andrade walked out of his apartment door and saw Medrano lying on the ground outside the building.\nOfficer Keith Threatt testified that he responded to a call of shots fired at 315 East Kensington at 3:50 a.m. on November 12, 1999. At the scene he saw Medrano\u2019s body lying on the ground near the rear of the building. Medrano was dressed in black from head to toe, including black gloves and a black ski mask. Inside the apartment, Threatt found a wounded Andrade.\nThe parties stipulated that Medrano died from multiple gunshot wounds.\nJoachim Torres, owner of the building at 315 East Kensington, testified that defendant previously had rented the same apartment occupied by Andrade. Defendant failed to return the apartment keys when he moved out and the locks were never changed.\nOn November 14, 1999, defendant gave a videotaped statement to the assistant State\u2019s Attorney. Defendant stated that on the morning of November 12, 1999, Medrano informed defendant of his plan to rob a house. Medrano planned to grab the homeowner in a headlock while defendant took the most valuable things from the apartment. When Medrano picked up defendant a few hours later, he gave defendant a mask and they proceeded to 315 East Kensington. The two men entered the apartment building and walked up to Andrade\u2019s apartment, the same apartment defendant had lived in a year earlier. As Medrano was knocking down the door, Andrade showed his gun. Medrano then showed his gun to Andrade. Defendant claimed that he did not know Medrano had a gun with him. Andrade began shooting. As soon as defendant heard gunshots he ran.\nDefendant presented no evidence. The jury found defendant guilty of home invasion, residential burglary, and first-degree felony murder of Medrano and not guilty of attempted murder of Andrade and aggravated battery with a firearm against Andrade. Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. The circuit court merged defendant\u2019s conviction for residential burglary into his conviction for home invasion and sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 30 years for first-degree felony murder and 10 years for home invasion.\nI\nDefendant first contends that his conviction for felony murder must be reversed because (1) the killing of Medrano was lawfully justified and therefore not within the statutory definition of felony murder; (2) the killing was not foreseeable; and (3) the jury was not instructed properly as to the elements of felony murder.\nA\nDefendant argues that his conviction for felony murder must be reversed because one of the essential elements of the offense, lack of lawful justification, was absent.\nPursuant to section 9 \u2014 1(a)(3) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 1(a)(3) (West 2000)) (section 9 \u2014 1(a)(3)):\n\u201cA person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:\n(3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder.\u201d\nAs the State points out, \u201cwithout lawful justification\u201d is not an element of the offense of first-degree murder in this case. See People v. Williams, 80 Ill. App. 3d 963, 400 N.E.2d 532 (1980) (Williams); People v. Miscichowski, 143 Ill. App. 3d 646, 493 N.E.2d 135 (1986) (Miscichowski). The words \u201cwithout lawful justification\u201d are a reference to affirmative defenses defendant could raise once charged. Unless a defendant presents some evidence of such an affirmative defense, the State\u2019s proof is complete without evidence that the act was without lawful justification. Williams, 80 Ill. App. 3d at 969; Miscichowski, 143 Ill. App. 3d at 653.\nIn the case at bar, defendant never raised any affirmative defenses or presented any evidence showing that his actions were legally justified. Defendant argues that because the actual shooter was the intended victim and his use of deadly force was legally justified, the absence of justifiable force became an element in this case. It is undisputed that Andrade acted in self-defense and defense of his dwelling and therefore was justified when he shot Medrano. According to defendant, the State\u2019s proof placed this element at issue.\nDefendant posits that because the actual shooter was legally justified when he killed Medrano, the killing does not fall within the statutory definition of felony murder. Defendant\u2019s argument seems to rest on an \u201cagency\u201d theory of the felony murder doctrine, i.e., because the actual shooter was justified in shooting the co-felon, then defendant was justified as well. Under such a theory \u201c \u2018the doctrine of felony murder does not extend to a killing, although growing out of the commission of the felony, if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise.\u2019 \u201d People v. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d 462, 466, 687 N.E.2d 973 (1997) (Lowery), quoting State v. Canola, 73 N.J. 206, 211-12, 374 A.2d 20, 23 (1977). Our supreme court has held unequivocally, however, that Illinois follows the proximate cause theory of felony murder as opposed to the agency theory. People v. Hickman, 59 Ill. 2d 89, 319 N.E.2d 511 (1974) (Hickman); Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 469; People v. Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d 247, 695 N.E.2d 474 (1998) (Dekens).\n\u201cConsistent with the proximate cause theory, liability should lie for any death proximately related to the defendant\u2019s criminal conduct.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252. Therefore, defendant is subject to the felony murder doctrine if the \u201cdecedent\u2019s death is the direct and proximate result of the defendant\u2019s felony.\u201d Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252. Under the proximate cause theory, the fact that the victim is a co-felon is immaterial. Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252 (defendant\u2019s felony murder conviction upheld where decedent was a co-felon who was killed by the intended victim of the defendant and co-felon); People v. Rhoden, 299 Ill. App. 3d 951, 702 N.E.2d 209 (1998). Application of the felony murder doctrine does not depend on the guilt or innocence of the person killed during the felony or on the identity of the person whose act caused the decedent\u2019s death. Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252. The committee comments to section 9 \u2014 1(a)(3) state:\n\u201cIt is immaterial whether the killing in such a case is intentional or accidental, or is committed by a confederate without the connivance of the defendant [citations] or even by a third person trying to prevent the commission of the felony.\u201d 720 ILCS Ann. 5/9 \u2014 1, Committee Comments \u2014 1961, at 15 (Smith-Hurd 2002).\nIn Hickman defendant and his co-felons fled after they were seen by police committing a burglary. An officer who was pursuing the burglars mistakenly was shot and killed by another officer, who mistook him for one of the burglars. Our supreme court rejected defendants\u2019 argument that they could not be found guilty of felony murder \u201cbecause the death of [the officer] was the result of a justifiable and lawful act by another police officer who was not acting in concert with the defendants nor in furtherance of their conduct.\u201d Hickman, 59 Ill. 2d at 92. The court noted that \u201c[t]he commission of the burglary, coupled with the election by defendants to flee, set in motion the pursuit by armed police officers. The shot which killed [the officer] was a shot fired in opposition to the escape of the fleeing burglars, and it was a direct and foreseeable consequence of defendants\u2019 actions.\u201d Hickman, 59 Ill. 2d at 94.\nOur supreme court has noted that \u201c[b]ecause of the extremely violent nature of felony murder, we seek the broadest bounds for the attachment of criminal liability.\u201d People v. Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d 87, 105, 692 N.E.2d 325 (1998). Under the proximate cause theory of felony murder, whether or not Andrade was legally justified in shooting Medrano is irrelevant to the question of whether or not defendant is guilty of the murder. As the supreme court stated in Lowery, \u201cthe proper focus of this inquiry is not whether [the shooter] was justified in his actions, but whether defendant\u2019s actions set in motion a chain of events that ultimately caused the death of decedent.\u201d Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 473.\nB\nDefendant next argues that his conviction must be reversed because Medrano\u2019s death was not the foreseeable consequence of defendant\u2019s initial criminal acts. Specifically, defendant argues that Medrano\u2019s death was not foreseeable because he did not know that Medrano was armed and he and Medrano did not plan to use any force other than putting Andrade in a headlock. Defendant further contends that any notion of foreseeability was precluded by the jury acquitting him of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm.\nOn review, a conviction will not be set aside on grounds of insufficient evidence unless the proof is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt as to defendant\u2019s guilt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 478 N.E.2d 267 (1985) (Collins). The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979); Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261.\n\u20225 Conviction for felony murder requires that decedent\u2019s death must have been the direct and proximate result of defendant\u2019s felony. Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252. Where defendant\u2019s actions set \u201cin motion a chain of events which were or should have been within his contemplation when the motion was initiated, he should be held responsible for any death which by direct and almost inevitable sequence results from the initial criminal act.\u201d Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 467. It is unimportant that defendant did not anticipate the precise sequence of events that followed upon his initial unlawful conduct; if his acts precipitated those events, he is responsible for the consequences. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 470.\nIn the present case, defendant initiated the chain of events when he, along with Medrano, broke into Andrade\u2019s apartment in the middle of the night. It was entirely foreseeable that Andrade would try to resist their unlawful actions. See Hickman, 59 Ill. 2d at 94 (\u201c[tjhose who commit forcible felonies know they may encounter resistance, both to their affirmative actions and to any subsequent escape\u201d); People v. Smith, 56 Ill. 2d 328, 307 N.E.2d 353 (1974).\nWithout merit is defendant\u2019s further argument that forseeability was precluded by the jury\u2019s acquittal of defendant on the charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm based on accountability. Defendant\u2019s acquittal indicates a jury finding that defendant did not share the same criminal intent or engage in a common criminal design with Medrano as to those charges, presumably because defendant did not know Medrano was armed. According to defendant he could not foresee Medrano\u2019s use of a gun that defendant did not know existed. It is irrelevant, however, that defendant did not anticipate the precise sequence of events that followed his unlawful entry into Andrade\u2019s apartment. See Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 470. \u201c[Tjhe fact that the precise manner in which death occurred to a particular victim may not have been foreseen by that felon also does not relieve him of responsibility.\u201d People v. Pugh, 261 Ill. App. 3d 75, 78, 634 N.E.2d 34 (1994). It was entirely foreseeable that Andrade would resist defendant\u2019s unlawful actions. See Hickman, 59 Ill. 2d at 94. The jury consistently found that defendant shared the same criminal intent or engaged in a common criminal design with Medrano to commit home invasion and residential burglary. Such finding was supported by defendant\u2019s videotaped statement. Medrano\u2019s death was a foreseeable consequence of defendant\u2019s conduct in committing the forcible felonies of home invasion and residential burglary.\nWhen the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it cannot be said that no rational trier of fact could have found that Medrano\u2019s death was a direct and foreseeable consequence of defendant\u2019s original actions.\nC\nDefendant next argues that his felony murder conviction must be reversed because the jury was not instructed, properly as to the elements of felony murder. According to defendant, the felony murder issues instruction was improper because it omitted the statutory element of lack of justification. As discussed in point I.A., lack of justification was not an element of first-degree felony murder in the case at bar. See Williams, 80 Ill. App. 3d at 968-69; Miscichowski, 143 Ill. App. 3d at 653. See also People v. Worsham, 26 Ill. App. 3d 767, 326 N.E.2d 134 (1975) (finding that the phrase \u201cwithout lawful justification\u201d properly was omitted from the jury instruction on the definition of battery where defendant did not raise an affirmative defense of justification).\nDefendant further argues that the instructions on felony murder/ accountability (Instruction No. 5.03A, modified) and the elements of felony murder (Instruction No. 7.02, modified) conflicted. The State responds that the two instructions accurately state the law.\nIn reviewing the adequacy of jury instructions, the appellate court must consider the instructions as a whole to determine if they fully and fairly cover the law. People v. Nutall, 312 Ill. App. 3d 620, 728 N.E.2d 597 (2000). \u201cThe function of instructions is to convey to the jury the correct principles of law applicable to the evidence so the jury can apply the proper legal principles to the facts and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the law and the evidence.\u201d People v. Peebles, 125 Ill. App. 3d 213, 217, 465 N.E.2d 539 (1984).\nIn the present case the instructions as a whole fully and fairly cover the law. Defendant could be accountable for the actions of Medrano, but not for the actions of Andrade, the intended victim. See People v. Williams, 324 Ill. App. 3d 419, 753 N.E.2d 1089 (2001) (to prove accountability the State must show that either: (1) defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal; or (2) there was a common criminal design). Defendant and Medrano were part of a common criminal design to enter and burglarize Andrade\u2019s apartment as evidenced by defendant\u2019s videotaped statement. Defendant could not be accountable for the actions of Andrade, however, because Andrade did not have any criminal intent and there was no common criminal design shared by defendant and Andrade. The language \u201cor one for whose conduct he is legally responsible\u201d in the elements instruction refers to Medrano. The \u201cacts\u201d referred to in the statement \u201cperformed the acts which ultimately resulted in the death\u201d in the elements instruction refers to the home invasion and residential burglary. The accountability instruction makes it clear that the death had to be a foreseeable consequence of defendant or Medrano committing the home invasion and/or residential burglary.\nThe instructions as a whole correctly set forth the law of felony murder.\nDefendant properly was convicted of felony murder.\nII\nDefendant next contends that he is entitled to a new trial because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where his trial counsel admitted defendant\u2019s participation in the predicate felonies, thereby effectively admitting guilt on the felony murder.\nIneffective assistance of counsel is established when a defendant shows that: (1) counsel\u2019s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel\u2019s error prejudiced the defendant in that but for counsel\u2019s shortcomings, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984) (Strickland); People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). The fundamental concern underlying this test is \u201cwhether counsel\u2019s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.\u201d Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 692-93, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction of counsel was the product of sound trial strategy and not incompetence. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 701 N.E.2d 1063 (1998). The prejudice prong of the Strickland test requires \u201ca reasonable probability of a different result, not merely a possibility.\u201d People v. Gacy, 125 Ill. 2d 117, 129-30, 530 N.E.2d 1340 (1988). An insufficient showing as to either prong of the Strickland test will defeat the claim. People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 643 N.E.2d 797 (1994).\nRelying on People v. Chandler, 129 Ill. 2d 233, 543 N.E.2d 1290 (1989) (Chandler), defendant argues that defense counsel\u2019s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In Chandler, defendant was charged with murder, residential burglary, and aggravated arson. The evidence established that two persons broke into the victim\u2019s house, stole several items, stabbed and killed the victim, and then set the house on fire. In both opening and closing statements, defense counsel conceded the truth of defendant\u2019s statement admitting his involvement in the crime but denied that defendant was guilty of murder. Under the law of felony murder and accountability, however, the concessions of defense counsel amounted to a concession of guilt. Our supreme court found that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.\nOur supreme court has revisited the Chandler holding several times and has noted that the determination in Chandler that counsel was ineffective was not based exclusively on counsel\u2019s apparent failure to comprehend the law of felony murder and accountability. Apart from admitting the accuracy of defendant\u2019s statement, which was sufficient to convict him, defense counsel in Chandler failed to cross-examine several key prosecution witnesses, conducted only cursory cross-examination of others, and called no witnesses to testify, including defendant, despite his assertion in his opening statement that defendant would testify and tell the jury what he did and did not do. See People v. Williams, 192 Ill. 2d 548, 736 N.E.2d 1001 (2000); People v. Shatner, 174 Ill. 2d 133, 673 N.E.2d 258 (1996) (Shatner); People v. Page, 155 Ill. 2d 232, 614 N.E.2d 1160 (1993). Counsel\u2019s fundamental misapprehension of the law colored the entire course of the proceedings, rendering his strategy and actions \u201cno real defense at all.\u201d Chandler, 129 Ill. 2d at 249.\nThe case sub judice is more akin to Shatner, where the supreme court found that defendant had failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. In Shatner, defense counsel conceded the truth of defendant\u2019s statement admitting his involvement in a crime, but claimed that an accomplice actually killed the victim. Defense counsel also thoroughly and vigorously cross-examined almost every State witness and argued that although defendant might be guilty of the underlying felony, he should not be convicted of murder because of his minimal involvement in the scheme. The supreme court noted that \u201c[ujltimately, it was the defendant\u2019s own statements, *** and not the actions or strategy of his counsel, which undermined any claim of innocence that defendant may have had. If a defendant enters a not-guilty plea in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, we are unwilling to find that his counsel was ineffective simply because he failed to contrive a leak-proof theory of innocence on defendant\u2019s behalf.\u201d Shatner, 174 Ill. 2d at 148. The supreme court recognized the riskiness of defense counsel\u2019s strategy, but noted that \u201cit was strategy nonetheless, and perhaps the only strategy which could have been seriously pursued given defendant\u2019s admissible incriminating statements and the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.\u201d Shatner, 174 Ill. 2d at 148.\nIn the present case, defense counsel chose to concede the truth of defendant\u2019s statement admitting his involvement in the plan to break into Andrade\u2019s apartment with the intent to commit residential burglary. This strategy allowed counsel also to use the helpful parts of the statement, such as defendant\u2019s contention that he did not know that Medrano was armed and that there was no plan to commit an armed robbery, to his benefit. It should be noted that defense counsel\u2019s representation won defendant acquittals on the charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. Unlike Chandler, defense counsel\u2019s strategy and actions did not amount to \u201cno real defense at all.\u201d Prior to trial, defense counsel unsuccessfully moved to quash defendant\u2019s arrest and suppress evidence, including defendant\u2019s videotaped statement. Counsel presented cogent opening and closing statements and thoroughly cross-examined the State\u2019s key witnesses. Counsel argued throughout trial that defendant was not guilty of murder because Medrano\u2019s death was not a foreseeable consequence of defendant\u2019s actions. Following the guilty verdict, counsel filed and argued a motion for a new trial raising, inter alia, the issue of legally inconsistent verdicts. As in Shatner, it was defendant\u2019s own statements which undermined any claims of innocence he may have had.\nDefendant argues that the focus of the ineffectiveness claim is not just on what counsel did, but also on what he failed to do. According to defendant, counsel should have challenged the application of the felony murder statute to the facts here by seeking dismissal of the charges and should have ensured that the jury was instructed that lack of justification was an element of felony murder. As discussed at length in point I, defendant\u2019s arguments are without merit.\nHere, as in Shatner, defense counsel\u2019s performance was not deficient.\nIll\nFinally, defendant contends that his conviction and 10-year sentence for home invasion must be vacated because home invasion was a lesser included offense of the felony murder for which he was also convicted and sentenced. According to defendant, home invasion served as the predicate felony for his first-degree felony murder conviction.\nDefendant failed to object at the sentencing hearing to having been convicted and sentenced for home invasion on the basis that the home invasion was a lesser included offense of felony murder. Therefore, defendant has waived this issue. People v. Smith, 183 Ill. 2d 425, 701 N.E.2d 1097 (1998) (Smith); People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 522 N.E.2d 1124 (1988). Because the conviction and sentence for home invasion affect defendant\u2019s substantial rights, however, the lesser included offense issue will be addressed. Smith, 183 Ill. 2d at 430.\nThe State responds that defendant properly was convicted and sentenced for home invasion where the jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder via a general finding of guilt. A general finding of guilt is presumed to be based on any good count in the indictment to which the proof is applicable. People v. Cardona, 158 Ill. 2d 403, 634 N.E.2d 720 (1994) (Cardona). Where the indictment contains several counts arising out of a single transaction and a general verdict is returned, the effect is that the defendant is guilty as charged in each count to which the proof is applicable. Cardona, 158 Ill. 2d at 411.\nIn the present case the trial proceeded on two counts of felony murder, one predicated on home invasion and one predicated on residential burglary. Relying on Cardona, the State argues that because the jury entered a general guilty verdict for first-degree murder, defendant is guilty of both counts of felony murder. Therefore, defendant properly was sentenced on one count of felony murder predicated on residential burglary and one count of home invasion.\nIn support of this argument, the State maintains that defendant\u2019s convictions for home invasion and residential burglary do not violate the one-act, one-crime rule, which provides that if more than one offense arises out of the same physical act, a defendant may not be convicted for more than one offense. See People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 363 N.E.2d 838 (1977) (King). The State ignores the supreme court\u2019s decision in People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill. 2d 58, 703 N.E.2d 11 (1998) (McLaurin). In McLaurin, defendant was convicted of and sentenced for both residential burglary and home invasion. The supreme court vacated defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence for residential burglary finding that the offenses of residential burglary and home invasion were predicated upon the same physical act, an unauthorized entry into the victim\u2019s home.\nSimilarly, in the present case the offenses of home invasion and residential burglary were carved from the same physical act of entering Andrade\u2019s residence. Under the principles enunciated in McLaurin, defendant\u2019s conviction for residential burglary cannot stand. Presumably recognizing this fact, the circuit court stated at the sentencing hearing that defendant\u2019s residential burglary conviction merged into his conviction for home invasion. Consequently, without merit is the State\u2019s contention that defendant was sentenced on one count of felony murder with a predicate felony of residential burglary and one count of home invasion. Defendant was sentenced on one count of felony murder with a predicate felony of home invasion and one count of home invasion.\nMultiple convictions are improper if they are based on lesser included offenses. King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566. In Smith, defendant was charged with and found guilty of (1) felony murder with a predicate felony of armed robbery and (2) armed robbery. The supreme court vacated defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence for the lesser included offense of armed robbery. \u201cBecause the armed robbery *** is a lesser included offense of felony murder in this case, the included offense of armed robbery will not support a separate conviction and sentence.\u201d Smith, 183 Ill. 2d at 432. See also People v. Coady, 156 Ill. 2d 531, 622 N.E.2d 798 (1993) (where armed robbery was the offense underlying the felony murder charge and, therefore, a lesser included offense of felony murder, it would not support a separate conviction and sentence); People v. Washington, 272 Ill. App. 3d 913, 919, 651 N.E.2d 625 (1995) (\u201cin the case of felony murder, the underlying felony is a lesser included offense because the felony is established by proof of the same or less than all of the facts required to establish the offense of the felony murder\u201d).\nSimilarly, in the case at bar, because the home invasion is a lesser included offense of felony murder, the home invasion will not support a separate conviction and sentence. Defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence for the lesser included offense of home invasion must be vacated.\nFor the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed in part and vacated in part.\nAffirmed in part and vacated in part.\nTHEIS, EJ., and KARNEZIS, J., concur.\n\u201cTo sustain the charge of first degree murder it is not necessary for the State to show that it was or may have been the original intent of the defendant that the deceased, Raymond Medrano, be killed. It is sufficient if the jury believes from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, combined to do an unlawful act, such as commit home invasion or residential burglary and that the deceased was killed as a foreseeable consequence of the parties committing that unlawful act.\u201d\ninstruction No. 7.02, modified, provided in pertinent part:\n\u201cTo sustain the charge of first degree murder the State must prove the following propositions:\nFirst: That the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, performed the acts which ultimately resulted in the death of Raymond Medrano; and Second: That when the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, did so he was committing the offenses of home invasion and residential burglary.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s reliance on People v. Land, 169 Ill. App. 3d 342, 523 N.E.2d 711 (1988) (Land), People v. Serrano, 286 Ill. App. 3d 485, 676 N.E.2d 1011 (1997) (Serrano), and People v. Morgan, 307 Ill. App. 3d 707, 718 N.E.2d 206 (1999), aff\u2019d, 197 Ill. 2d 404, 758 N.E.2d 813 (2001) (Morgan), is misplaced. In Land, the court held that \u201cthe predicate felony upon which the murder conviction is based must involve an intentional or knowing state of mind.\u201d Land, 169 Ill. App. 3d at 357. Both home invasion and residential burglary require a knowing state of mind. See 720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 11(a) (West 2000); 720 ILCS 5/19 \u2014 3(a) (West 2000). In Serrano, the court found that compulsion could be a defense to felony murder because it could negate the predicate felony. In the present case, defendant did not raise any affirmative defenses, including compulsion. In Morgan, the court held that \u201cthe predicate felony underlying a charge of felony murder must involve conduct with a felonious purpose other than the killing itself.\u201d Morgan, 307 Ill. App. 3d at 714. The predicate felonies involved in the present case (home invasion and residential burglary) involved conduct with a felonious purpose other than the killing of Medrano.\nThe appellate decisions relied upon by the State were decided prior to the supreme court\u2019s decision in McLaurin and therefore are not dispositive. See People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. App. 3d 972, 667 N.E.2d 600 (1996); People v. Jones, 148 Ill. App. 3d 133, 498 N.E.2d 772 (1986); People v. Govednik, 150 Ill. App. 3d 717, 502 N.E.2d 276 (1986); People v. Snow, 124 Ill. App. 3d 955, 464 N.E.2d 1262 (1984).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HARTMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier and Robert Hirschhorn, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, John E. Nowak, and Colin Dunn, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 1-01-3757\nOpinion filed July 31, 2003.\nRehearing denied September 11, 2003.\nMichael J. Pelletier and Robert Hirschhorn, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, John E. Nowak, and Colin Dunn, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0849-01", "first_page_order": 867, "last_page_order": 881 }