{ "id": 4306984, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hampton", "decision_date": "2010-12-17", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201408\u20143654", "first_page": "925", "last_page": "943", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "406 Ill. App. 3d 925" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "653 N.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 Ill. App. 3d 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 258757 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/273/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 N.E.2d 1035", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 Ill. App. 3d 997", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2600642 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1005" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/212/0997-01" ] }, { "cite": "665 N.E.2d 1275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 Ill. 2d 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 55994 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "101-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/172/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "693 N.E.2d 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821402 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 N.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5463653 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "871 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 Ill. 2d 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3610746 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86-87" }, { "page": "86-87" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/226/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "606 N.W.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 11483156 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356", "parenthetical": "\"it is the fact that a defendant's conduct interferes with the interest in having witnesses testify at a public trial that makes the defendant's conduct wrongful\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/606/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "830 N.E.2d 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "171", "parenthetical": "\"in collusion cases *** a defendant's joint effort with a witness to secure the latter's unavailability, regardless of whether the witness already decided 'on his own' not to testify, may be sufficient to support a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing\"" }, { "page": "171", "parenthetical": "\"[a] finding that a defendant somehow influenced a witness's decision not to testify is not required to trigger the application of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine where there is collusion in implementing that decision or planning for its implementation\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 Mass. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 985750 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541", "parenthetical": "\"in collusion cases *** a defendant's joint effort with a witness to secure the latter's unavailability, regardless of whether the witness already decided 'on his own' not to testify, may be sufficient to support a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing\"" }, { "page": "540-41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/444/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 F.3d 562", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 8969532 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567", "parenthetical": "\"[a]ctive participation or engagement, or *** the personal commission of the crime, is not required\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/412/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "721 N.E.2d 539", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ill. 2d 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 535949 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/188/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "792 N.E.2d 1163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 Ill. 2d 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1302618 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/205/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "846 N.E.2d 203", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 Ill. App. 3d 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4263306 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/364/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "884 N.E.2d 675", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "379 Ill. App. 3d 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4275958 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" }, { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/379/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "902 N.E.2d 600", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[t]he doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be employed to deny an accused his confrontation right absent evidence that, when committing the crime or other wrongdoing, the accused was motivated by the desire to prevent the witness from testifying against him at trial\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Ill. 2d 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3619642 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/232/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 U.S. 813", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3275498 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833" }, { "page": "244" }, { "page": "2280" }, { "page": "833" }, { "page": "2280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/547/0813-01" ] }, { "cite": "870 N.E.2d 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 Ill. 2d 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5705152 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "269" }, { "page": "277-78" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/225/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 U.S. 145", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11293 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1878, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158-59" }, { "page": "247-48" }, { "page": "158-59" }, { "page": "247-48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/98/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "541 U.S. 36", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5873383 ], "weight": 12, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "68" }, { "page": "203" }, { "page": "1374" }, { "page": "62" }, { "page": "199" }, { "page": "1370" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/541/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "867 N.E.2d 957", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 Ill. 2d 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5704506 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" }, { "page": "240" }, { "page": "245" }, { "page": "245" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/225/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "842 N.E.2d 1124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 Ill. App. 3d 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5767184 ], "weight": 11, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301" }, { "page": "309-10" }, { "page": "300" }, { "page": "300" }, { "page": "301" }, { "page": "301" }, { "page": "309-10" }, { "page": "301" }, { "page": "301" }, { "page": "301" }, { "page": "301", "parenthetical": "\"any conduct by an accused intended to render a witness against him unavailable to testify is wrongful and may result in forfeiture of the accused's privilege to be confronted by that witness\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/363/0293-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1204, "char_count": 39444, "ocr_confidence": 0.777, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1450470664505923 }, "sha256": "6c21a37a68c90007c5d11d90d00f5293ff84b50e989eec414ec0809c4c8eea3f", "simhash": "1:39baf54d79641a22", "word_count": 6899 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:07.786999+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE CAHILL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial in 2002, defendant Willie Hampton was convicted of eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14(a)(4), (a)(8) (West 2002)) and two counts of home invasion with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 11(a)(3) (West 2002)) and sentenced to 84 years in prison. On appeal, we remanded the case and ordered the trial court to conduct a forfeiture by wrongdoing hearing and grant a new trial if defendant did not forfeit his confrontation rights. People v. Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d 293, 301, 842 N.E.2d 1124 (2006). We also vacated four of defendant\u2019s convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of home invasion and found that sentencing enhancements added to the aggravated criminal sexual assault convictions violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a711). Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 309-10. The State filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court to contest our ruling on the sentencing enhancements issue. The supreme court found we prematurely considered the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancements, vacated the portions of our opinion addressing that issue and remanded this cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on forfeiture by wrongdoing. People v. Hampton, 225 Ill. 2d 238, 245, 867 N.E.2d 957 (2007). On remand, the trial court found defendant forfeited his right to confront a witness against him and reinstated his convictions and 84-year prison sentence.\nOn appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the State failed to establish he forfeited his right to confront a witness against him at trial; (2) the 15-year enhancements added to four of defendant\u2019s aggravated criminal sexual assault convictions violate the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution; (3) one of defendant\u2019s convictions for home invasion must be vacated because both convictions rest on the same illegal entry into the victims\u2019 home on June 21, 2000; and (4) four of defendant\u2019s eight convictions and sentences for aggravated criminal sexual assault must be vacated where the evidence showed there were four acts of sexual penetration. The State contests the first issue but concedes the last three points. We now affirm the trial court\u2019s forfeiture ruling, and in accord with the State\u2019s concessions, we vacate one home invasion conviction, vacate four aggravated criminal sexual assault convictions and remand for resentencing on the four remaining criminal sexual assault convictions.\nThe evidence at trial established that defendant, codefendant Cory Durr and an unknown male illegally entered Y.N.\u2019s home in Chicago at 3 a.m. on June 21, 2000. Defendant and the unknown male raped Y.N. then fled to a house located at 6450 South Hoyne Avenue. Shortly after, defendant, Durr and Maurice Alexander were arrested at that location.\nThe State called Durr to testify. Durr was serving an eight-year prison term after pleading guilty to charges relating to this case. Durr invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions relating to the crime. The trial court told Durr he had no fifth amendment right under the circumstances and could be held in contempt of court if he refused to answer the State\u2019s questions. Durr still refused to talk about the crime but admitted giving a handwritten statement to an assistant State\u2019s Attorney on June 22, 2000.\nThe State moved to admit Durr\u2019s statement under section 115\u2014 10.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115 \u2014 10.2 (West 2000) (allowing, in limited circumstances, hearsay statement of a witness who refuses to testify despite court order to do so)). Defendant objected on the ground that the statement violated his right to confront the witness. The court admitted the statement, which was then read into evidence.\nDurr said the following in his statement to the assistant State\u2019s Attorney. Durr met defendant and Maurice Alexander in the early morning hours of June 21, 2000. Defendant told Durr that he and Alexander were on their way to \u201cbreak into a house and go steal some money.\u201d Durr decided to go along. All three men went to defendant\u2019s house at 6450 South Hoyne Avenue to pick up guns. They then walked to Y.N.\u2019s house. Defendant told Durr to stand on the back porch of Y.N.\u2019s house and watch for police. After about two or three minutes, defendant opened the back door from inside the house and let Durr inside. Durr stood in the kitchen while defendant yelled at Y.N., demanding that she give him money. After about 10 or 15 minutes, Durr walked into the living room. Durr saw defendant and Alexander \u201ctearing up the room looking for money.\u201d Alexander told Durr to go back into the kitchen and continue looking out for the police. Durr heard someone coming upstairs from the basement. Defendant came into the kitchen, pulled his gun out and ordered the man who came from the basement to lie on the floor. Durr stayed in the kitchen for another 15 minutes. He then went into Y.N.\u2019s bedroom. Durr saw defendant and Alexander sexually assault Y.N. He then went back into the kitchen. Defendant and Alexander came \u201ccharging towards the door\u201d approximately 5 to 10 minutes later. All three men left Y.N.\u2019s house and ran to defendant\u2019s house.\nFollowing closing argument, the trial court found defendant guilty on all counts. The court said it \u201cparticularly found persuasive the statements of Mr. Cory Durr in that his statements were consistent with the testimony of the victim in this case.\u201d The court gave \u201cvery little weight\u201d to the defense witnesses who testified they heard Y.N. tell police that defendant was not involved in the crime.\nDefendant was convicted of eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14(a)(4), (a)(8) (West 2002)) and two counts of home invasion with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 11(a)(3) (West 2002)). The court sentenced defendant to 21 years on four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, to run consecutively, for a total of 84 years in prison. Defendant was sentenced to 21 years in prison for each of the home invasion counts, to run concurrently with the other sentences. Defendant was also sentenced to six years on the remaining four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, also to run concurrently with the other sentences.\nOn direct appeal, among other claims, defendant contended that under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), his sixth amendment right to confrontation (U.S. Const., amend. VI) was violated when Durr\u2019s statement was admitted into evidence. Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 300. The State agreed that there had been a Crawford violation but argued that defendant forfeited his right to assert a confrontation clause challenge because he wrongly procured Durr\u2019s silence. Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 300. We vacated and remanded this case to the trial court \u201cfor an evidentiary hearing on the State\u2019s forfeiture-by-wrongdoing claim.\u201d Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 301. We held that if defendant were found not to have forfeited his right of confrontation, he would be entitled to a new trial. Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 301. We also vacated defendant\u2019s four convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of home invasion and found that the 15-year firearm enhancements added to each of defendant\u2019s aggravated criminal sexual assault convictions were unconstitutional under the proportionate penalties clause. Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 309-10.\nThe State petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal our finding that the 15-year add-on for aggravated criminal sexual assault was unconstitutional. Hampton, 225 Ill. 2d at 240. The supreme court granted the appeal, found we prematurely considered the constitutionality of the 15-year firearm add-on and vacated the portions of our opinion addressing issues other than the forfeiture by wrongdoing. Hampton, 225 Ill. 2d at 245. The supreme court remanded this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant forfeited his right to assert a confrontation clause challenge by wrongdoing. Hampton, 225 Ill. 2d at 245.\nOn remand, the following evidence was presented at the evidentiary hearing.\nOfficer Travis Armstead testified that he was acting as lockup keeper on January 1, 1997, when he came into contact with defendant as part of his duties. Defendant listed his mother, Francine Hampton, as a contact person while being processed.\nOfficer David Stock testified that he was working in the intelligence unit at the Centraba Correctional Center on July 2, 2002. Stock was informed by a mail room employee of a suspicious letter. The letter was addressed to inmate Cory Durr with a return address of \u201cguess who?\u201d and signed by \u201cBlack.\u201d After investigating, Stock learned that defendant, with the nickname of \u201cBlack,\u201d was a codefendant in Durr\u2019s case. The letter directed Durr on how to testify, and Stock believed \u201cit was communication that should not be taking place.\u201d Stock contacted his supervisor and forwarded the letter to the Cook County State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office on July 12, 2002. Durr never saw the letter.\nAfter the letter was mailed, Stock began reviewing phone conversations between Durr and defendant\u2019s mother, Francine Hampton, recorded on Centraba\u2019s phone system. Stock transferred some of the conversations onto cassette tapes and sent them to Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Lawrence O\u2019Reilly, who was prosecuting defendant\u2019s case.\nIn August 2002, when Durr returned from testifying in defendant\u2019s case, Durr saw Stock and said \u201c[y]ou don\u2019t play fair, Stock.\u201d\nNicholas Richert, a DNA expert for the Illinois State Police, testified that defendant\u2019s DNA matched that found on the flap of the envelope sent to Durr.\nThe State entered into evidence defendant\u2019s birth certificate showing his mother to be Francine Powell and his father to be Willie Hampton and phone records showing that the phone number dialed by Durr was registered to Francine Hampton.\nThe State entered into evidence a transcript of Durr\u2019s testimony from the hearing of People v. Francine Hampton, 02 CR 19850 (Cir. Ct. Cook Co.) on July 7, 2004. Francine was charged with suborning perjury and communicating with Durr in connection to defendant\u2019s trial but found not guilty. Durr testified at the hearing that he had known Francine since defendant was a little boy and felt close to her. He called Francine several times from prison, including May 14, 2002, May 25, 2002, May 29, 2002, and June 27, 2002. He knew that he was going to be a witness at defendant\u2019s trial in June 2002 and spoke with Francine and defendant\u2019s family about \u201cwhat he was going to do.\u201d He denied that Francine suggested he testify falsely, told him specific words to repeat at defendant\u2019s trial, offered him anything in return for testimony or influenced his testimony at defendant\u2019s trial. He denied Francine told him to \u201cjust plead the Fifth\u201d or \u201cplead the Fifth, if push come to shove and somebody try to make you do it, all you know is [defendant] wasn\u2019t there.\u201d He said he \u201calready had that in my mind what I was going to do.\u201d\nThe State entered into evidence the \u201cguess who?\u201d letter addressed to Durr and dated June 28, 2002. It is included in the record on appeal and reads in part:\n\u201cC-Dub, what\u2019s up lil brother! Nothing much with me. You know I started trial on the 24th. Man Dog I was nervous as hell. Yogi [the victim] came and got down on me. But her testimony wasn\u2019t as strong as I thought it was going to be. My lawyer said if she shows any doubt on the stand we are going to win. He said she showed doubt when the police first took us to her house and the 911 call. Because she said she knew who I was all the time right if that was the case why didn\u2019t she tell the police it was me from the start and she had several opportunities too. Then the part about the rape. In her original statement she said I had on a condom. On the stand she wasn\u2019t sure if I had one on or not. And you know my D.N.A. test was negative. You should of heard the police on the stand. Do you remember the black lady and man that arrested us and took us to yogi house? They wasn\u2019t at court! It was 2 white dudes. They kept [messing] up! Dog they were [messing] up so bad one time my lawyer asked them a question about where they took us to. One officer said they took us to yogi house first. The other said they took us straight to the police station. The [expletive deleted] was crazy. That hype bitch came to court too. But she wasn\u2019t on [anything]!! I think the [S]tate really need[s] you to get down on me to get a conviction. Because they are going to use you on the 16th of July. I spoke with my lawyer about the issue[.] [H]e said the best thing for you to do is to plead the [fifth]. He said you could tell your mother to call the [public defender] and get him to file a motion for you to plead the [fifth] so you don\u2019t have to come back here. But I think that [the public defender] is on their side. You can just plead the [fifth] when you get here. He said the [S]tate is [going to] try to scare the [expletive deleted] out of you but there[\u2019]s nothing they can do. NOTHING!!! Plus[,] I heard this from the judge[\u2019]s mouth. He said if a person does not want to testify!,] he or she [does not] have to. So dog, don\u2019t let them spook you. Don\u2019t get down on me man. O.K.\n***\nWell Dog I\u2019m about to be up. Make sure you call my momma o.k. Love family tell your old \u2018g\u2019 I said hello. I\u2019m out[.] Black\u201d\nThe audio recordings and transcript of the phone calls made between Fran cine Hampton and Durr were admitted into evidence and are also part of the record on appeal. Relevant parts of the recordings are as follows: May 14, 2002:\n\u201cCORY DURR (CD): That\u2019s it. (inaudible) then they\u2019ll say (inaudible). They\u2019ll try to call me as a witness. I wrote him a couple times (inaudible).\n* * *\nFRANCINE HAMPTON (FH): Okay. Do you know \u2014 what you gonna \u2014 do you know what to say when they \u2014 if they call you?\n^ i|c %\nCD: I don\u2019t know what they talking about, man. I ain\u2019t got nothing for them. I say, I taking the fifth.\nsj; % iji\nCD: So he ain\u2019t got nothing to worry about. Tell him it\u2019s all good.\u201d\nMay 24, 2002:\n\u201cCD: ([I]naudible) when you talk to (inaudible) I\u2019m sending it there cause I gotta send it there first and then (inaudible) gotta send it to him.\u201d\nMay 25, 2002:\n\u201cFH: Yeah. They sure trying to use your statement against [defendant] cause that\u2019s all they got. That\u2019s the only thing they got is your statement. They can\u2019t find (inaudible).\n* * *\nFH: ([I]naudible) but I didn\u2019t know what he was talking about. I say you want to write [defendant].\nCD: Right.\nFH: You, you need this address (inaudible).\n* * *\nCD: I told him \u2014 I wrote a letter and I told him I\u2019m gonna send it to you.\nFH: Yeah, that\u2019s what I been waiting for (inaudible).\n$ ^ ^\nFH: They must have took your letter that you sent to [defendant].\nCD: Yeah, that\u2019s what I think cause they\u2014\nFH: Yeah. Did you say anything in it?\nCD: No, uhn. Just told him, man, don\u2019t worry about nothing, everything will be cool. He told me \u2014 the lawyer said he was worried about me coming back and testify (inaudible) I told him, he ain\u2019t got nothing to worry about. ([I]naudible). Be cool. I asked him how he was doing.\n* * *\nFH: Well, I need to know what you gonna say.\nCD: ([I]naudihle) I\u2019m planning on saying nothing. They can\u2019t make me talk.\nFH: Huh? Can you do that?\nCD: Yeah. Well, I pleaded the fifth. What can I do?\nFH: I don\u2019t know, (inaudible). They can\u2019t give you no more time.\n* * *\nFH: I told you I think it\u2019s best that you, that you say, I tried to say it from the beginning (inaudible).\nCD: Well, he wasn\u2019t there with us. Right.\nFH: ([I]naudible) he wasn\u2019t there, they kept on beating me and telling me, yes, he did, yes, you did.\nCD: Right.\nFH: So I just went on and agreed with what they said. But why did you take the time. Cause I just don\u2019t like, you know, (inaudible) going to jail anyway.\nCD: Right.\nFH: ([Ijnaudible) really wasn\u2019t fair. I don\u2019t, I don\u2019t remember (inaudible) being there (inaudible).\nCD: But I told the public defender], I told him, told him that, that I didn\u2019t know that I \u2014 that what I was signing. I thought it was \u2014 they told me I was signing something to say that (inaudible) the question.\nFH: Right, right.\nCD: And once I found out what it was, it was too late to, you know what I\u2019m saying, take it back.\nFH: Uh-huh.\nCD: So I \u2014 it took a little time to go ahead and get out. ([I]naudible[.])\nFH: Right, right.\nCD: That\u2019s really it. And anything else I ain\u2019t got nothing to say about that. I already took my time.\n* * *\nFH: They, they gonna probably make you say (inaudible) was there.\nCD: They \u2014 ain\u2019t nothing happening. ([I]naudible[.])\n* * *\nFH: Cause see sometimes you get there and say I plead the fifth and then they\u2019re saying, I don\u2019t know. I don\u2019t know. But I know you gonna handle it.\nCD: I got that. Tell him don\u2019t worry about it.\nFH: All right.\n* * *\nCD: Man, when you talk to him tell him don\u2019t even worry about it, (inaudible).\nFH: You got it.\nCD: I got it.\nFH: Don\u2019t let them trick you for it.\nCD: No.\nFH: Don\u2019t sign your name or nothing.\nHe * *\nCD: When I go in there and tell him (inaudible) they ain\u2019t got nothing else on him. If, if, if the witness ain\u2019t there (inaudible) they ain\u2019t got no case.\nFH: Right.\nCD: ([I]naudible) eat them up and try and let the [S]tate figure it out. Cause they ain\u2019t got nothing. They ain\u2019t got no, no solid evidence.\nH< H< *\nCD: ([Tjnaudible) I\u2019m like, man, I gotta go back to the County, man. I wish I didn\u2019t have to go back, man. I asked dude why he (inaudible) they might call me back. He told me, no. And I told my lawyer, I said (inaudible). He say, it\u2019s over with (inaudible). And if they ain\u2019t got no evidence \u2014 he say, the evidence (inaudible) said they ain\u2019t go no evidence (inaudible) on [defendant]. She like, well, (inaudible). You should be coming home.\nHi Hs H*\nCD: ([I]naudible[.]) I told him, I told him in my letter when I, when I get out we (inaudible) by the time I get out. And we going down when we get out.\nHi H* v\nCD: I\u2019m gonna be cool. Tell him don\u2019t worry about it, man. ([I]naudible[.])\nFH: Yeah, he worried about it.\nCD: Tell him don\u2019t worry, man.\n* * *\nFH: They gonna be kind of questions, I didn\u2019t know what I was saying. And I told him \u2014 (inaudible) was not there. That\u2019s all you need to say.\nCD: Right.\nFH: He wasn\u2019t there, you know.\nCD: And then they gonna ask me, why (inaudible). I didn\u2019t know exactly what I was signing. The police told me I was signing something different. (Inaudible) and they gave me that paper.\nFH: Yeah.\n* * *\nFH: Every time they ask you a question just take a deep breath before you answer. ([I]naudible[.]) And remember we gonna be there in court.\u201d\nMay 29, 2002:\n\u201cFH: If they ask you your name plead the fifth.\nCD: Huh?\nFH: If they ask you your name plead the fifth.\n* * *\nCD: I want to know where \u2014 what, what they was gonna be trying to ask me.\nFH: Oh, okay. I\u2019m gonna \u2014 you know what, I\u2019m, I\u2019m gonna call him the day before court.\nCD: Right.\nFH: On the 9th.\nCD: Okay.\nFH: I\u2019ll call him on the 9th. But I think you\u2019re thing is to plead the fifth when they get you on the stand. They said they probably won\u2019t even bring you in the court room.\nHi * *\nFH: You\u2019ll plead the fifth. They probably gonna try to scare you.\nHt * Hi\nFH: ([Ijnaudible) scare you and say they gonna hold you in contempt. Just tell them I plead the fifth. Don\u2019t answer no questions. Don\u2019t even tell them your name.\nCD: Right.\nFH: What\u2019s your name. I plead the fifth.\nCD: Ok. I was gonna ask you what do you say. I was gonna ask you to ask them what he wanted me to say.\nFH: Just plead the fifth.\nCD: All right, okay.\nFH: Say from day one, plead the fifth.\n* * *\nFH: ([Ijnaudible) call me on the 9th. I say I know you gonna call me. Did (inaudible)?\nCD: Right.\n* * *\nFH: If they don\u2019t let you call, just plead the fifth.\nCD: All right. That\u2019s all I wanted to know.\nFH: Plead the fifth. If push come to shove and somebody try to make you, all I know is [defendant] wasn\u2019t there.\nCD: Right.\nFH: ([I]naudible) you know what you said (inaudible).\nCD: Right, right, right, exactly, okay.\nFH: ([I]naudible) get out. But was [defendant] there, no, he wasn\u2019t there.\nCD: Okay. All that\u2019s [sic] I needed to know.\n^ s\u00a1:\nCD: Tell him, I say, man, just be cool. I got him though.\n* * *\nFH: Yeah. ([I]naudible) if the people down there told (inaudible) get to talk to you and tell you when you get on the witness stand raise your right hand, I plead the fifth. I don\u2019t have nothing to say. If push to come shove and they might push you and try to scare you (inaudible) contempt carry 30 days.\nCD: Man, I\u2019m already doing time, man. It ain\u2019t nothing.\n*\nFH: ([I]naudible) they made me (inaudible).\nCD: Right.\nFH: I remember, I remember and my mind came back and [defendant] wasn\u2019t there.\nCD: Okay. Tell him don\u2019t worry, I got him.\nFH: You got him?\nCD: Yeah.\nFH: Don\u2019t get scared, Corey.\n***\nFH: Ain\u2019t nothing they can do to you.\n* * *\nCD: So I ain\u2019t worried about it. Tell, tell him just be cool. And he\u2019ll be out and then the following summer I\u2019ll be back out.\n^ $\nCD: All right, I\u2019ll talk with you. All right, I\u2019ll talk to you later. FH: Okay, love you, Corey.\nCD: I love you too, Miss Hampton.\nFH: Okay, call me on the 9th if you can (inaudible).\nCD: All right.\u201d\nJune 27, 2002:\n\u201cFH: ([I]naudible[.]) They gonna bring you back.\nCD: Yeah.\nFH: Yeah. ([I]naudible[.])\nCD: When they talking about bringing me back?\nFH: July 16th.\nCD: ([I]naudible[.]) Cause\u2014\nFH: Huh?\nCD: Cause my momma say he talked to \u2014 the lawyer said that he (inaudible) my, my rights. He say I ain\u2019t gotta take it if I don\u2019t want to.\nFH: Yeah, (inaudible).\nCD: Cause that\u2019s when I told her, I told her, I ain\u2019t (inaudible) talk to the lawyer and call back. When I talk to her she said (inaudible) I won\u2019t have to testify. That\u2019s what dude said.\n* * *\nCD: She talked to the one that (inaudible) public defender. The one who run the show.\nFH: Uh-huh.\nCD: He said I wouldn\u2019t have to testify if I didn\u2019t want to.\nFH: Huh?\nCD: He said I wouldn\u2019t have to testify if I didn\u2019t want to.\nFH: ([Ijnaudible) the public defender be there with you.\nCD: Right.\nFH: ([Ijnaudible) said they gonna try to scare you to the point that, you know, you just gonna\u2014\nCD: I ain\u2019t going \u2014 cause that\u2019s what they did right there the first time. He\u2019s talking about he can charge me with perjury (inaudible) extra time. I said, yeah, okay, then, so be it then.\nFH: Uh-huh.\nCD: He got mad.\nFH: Yeah, (inaudible) there\u2019s nothing they can do to you. He said anything \u2014 the only thing they can do to you is charge you (inaudible). And that\u2019s (inaudible) 30 days and you have to do 14 days.\n* * *\nFH: If they charge you with perjury, give you 30 days.\nCD: Right.\nFH: He said but they ain\u2019t coming to you like that. They came into you (inaudible) major time.\nCD: Right, I understand.\nFH: ([Ijnaudible) public defender have the paperwork done and where you at.\nCD: Right.\nFH: Send you the paperwork and you sign it saying you plead the fifth.\nCD: Right.\nFH: And he can just present to the judge like that. They don\u2019t have to bring you all (inaudible).\n* * *\nCD: They was talking a whole bunch of lies. You talk to [defendant]?\nFH: Yeah.\n* * *\nFH: He still real scared cause she got up (inaudible).\n% % %\nFH: You know what [the victim] said?\nCD: What?\nFH: [The victim] said (inaudible).\n* * *\nCD: How many people did she say that was in the house that day?\nFH: ([I]naudible) three.\nCD: Okay. There was three, right. ([I]naudible) me and him (inaudible). Where the other person at?\n* * *\nFH: They said she said (inaudible). She said that (inaudible).\n***\nFH: One was in the front, one was in the back.\n$ $ ^\nFH: Then they changed places, one got in the front and one got in the back.\n***\nFH: And then she say, well, [defendant] trying to get in the front (inaudible) and she said no. And he said well the DNA came back negative.\n***\nFH: And she said well, he didn\u2019t ejaculate. He said well they found semen on the (inaudible).\n^ ^\nFH: ([I]naudible) to call 911. She said (inaudible).\n$ $ ^\nFH: You can\u2019t talk like you from the (inaudible). They gonna look at your face (inaudible).\n* * *\nFH: ([I]naudible) ask for a lawyer will I have to come back and testify when the [S]tate call me (inaudible). They told me no. So I \u2014 that\u2019s why I went and took the time. If I would have knew they was gonna call me back (inaudible).\n$ $ $\nFH: Okay. And if you don\u2019t send them and they bring you back on the 16th, you know what to do.\nCD: Yeah, I plead the fifth. I ain\u2019t got nothing to say. I told that \u2014 I told [defendant] that in the \u2014 when they brought me back the first time.\nFH: ([I]naudible) That\u2019s all they got.\nCD: All right. Well, I\u2019m fitting to get off this phone. Tell [defendant], man, he gonna be all right so.\u201d\nAfter the trial court reviewed the audiotapes and transcript of the conversations between Francine and Durr, the State rested. A motion for a directed verdict was denied. The defense then called Durr to testify.\nDurr testified that he had known the Hampton family all his life and acknowledged speaking with Francine on the phone while he was in prison. He said that it was his decision alone to plead the fifth at defendant\u2019s trial and denied that Francine or defendant encouraged him to take the fifth. Durr admitted to speaking with Francine regularly but could not remember the exact dates. He denied discussing defendant\u2019s trial with Francine. He acknowledged that when he pled guilty to his crime, he had given his handwritten statement freely and that it was true and accurate.\nHaving listened to the audiotapes, the court added the following to the record: (1) on the May 14, 2002, tape Durr admitted to his voice, and the caller identified herself as \u201cBlack\u2019s mom\u201d; (2) on May 25, 2002, the same voice the court recognized as being Black\u2019s (defendant\u2019s) mom or Francine Hampton said, \u201cI need to know what you going to say. Don\u2019t let them trick you for it\u201d; (3) on the May 29, 2002, transcript, the same voice the court attributed to Francine said she had talked to defendant, he was nervous and that if Durr was asked his name, to plead the fifth; (4) on July 4, 2002, the voice of Francine said that \u201cJunior [defendant] has been asking if she and Mr. Durr have been talking, and it indicates that there was conversation going on\u201d; and (5) on June 27, 2002, Francine indicated to Durr \u201cyou know what to do.\u201d\nThe court discussed the letter defendant sent to Durr and found that, while Durr did not receive the letter, it evidenced defendant\u2019s intent to procure Durr\u2019s absence by wrongful means.\nThe trial court found that defendant, via his mother Francine Hampton, procured Cory Durr\u2019s unavailability and so forfeited his confrontation rights. The court reinstated defendant\u2019s convictions and the 84-year sentence in accordance with our decision in Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 301.\nOn appeal, defendant first contends that the State failed to establish he forfeited his right to confront Cory Durr based on phone calls between Durr and defendant\u2019s mother where no evidence rebutted Durr\u2019s testimony that: (1) he decided to take the fifth before speaking to defendant\u2019s mother; (2) Durr initiated the calls; (3) defendant did not know of the calls; and (4) his mother\u2019s discussions with Durr did not constitute wrongdoing.\nThe sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that \u201c[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him.\u201d U.S. Const., amend. VI. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), the Court held that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible unless (1) the declarant is unavailable and (2) the accused had an earlier opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203, 124 S. Ct. at 1374. The Crawford Court expressly adopted \u201cthe rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing\u201d that \u201cextinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.\u201d Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 199, 124 S. Ct. at 1370, citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59, 25 L. Ed. 244, 247-48 (1878).\nIn People v. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d 246, 870 N.E.2d 333 (2007), the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine in holding that \u201c \u2018one who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation.\u2019 \u201d Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d at 269, quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224, 244, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2280 (2006).\nTo invoke the doctrine of forfeiture-by-wrongdoing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing in the trial court \u201cthat the defendant intended by his actions to procure the witness\u2019 absence.\u201d Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d at 277-78, citing Davis, 547 U.S. at 833, 126 L. Ed. at 244, 126 S. Ct. at 2280; see also In re Rolandis G., 232 Ill. 2d 13, 42, 902 N.E.2d 600 (2008) (\u201c[t]he doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be employed to deny an accused his confrontation right absent evidence that, when committing the crime or other wrongdoing, the accused was motivated by the desire to prevent the witness from testifying against him at trial\u201d).\nWe will defer to the trial court\u2019s finding that a defendant forfeited his right to confrontation \u201c \u2018 \u201c \u2018unless the trial court\u2019s exercise of discretion has been frustrated by an erroneous rule of law.\u2019 \u201d \u2019 \u201d People v. Spicer, 379 Ill. App. 3d 441, 451, 884 N.E.2d 675 (2007), quoting People v. Purcell, 364 Ill. App. 3d 283, 293, 846 N.E.2d 203 (2006), quoting People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 89, 792 N.E.2d 1163 (2001), quoting People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365, 369, 721 N.E.2d 539 (1999).\nIn Hampton, after analyzing Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 158-59, 25 L. Ed. at 247-48, we concluded that \u201cany conduct by an accused intended to render a witness against him unavailable to testify is wrongful and may result in forfeiture of the accused\u2019s privilege to be confronted by that witness.\u201d Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 301; see also Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing applies when a defendant \u201chas engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness\u201d); United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562, 567 (4th Cir. 2005) (\u201c[a]ctive participation or engagement, or *** the personal commission of the crime, is not required\u201d).\nHere, we believe the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant engaged in conduct intended to render Durr unavailable to testify against him at trial. First, the \u201cguess who?\u201d letter was properly considered as evidence of defendant\u2019s intent to wrongfully procure Durr\u2019s absence at trial. It is undisputed that defendant was the author of the letter and Durr was the intended recipient. The letter was mailed on June 28, 2002, four days after defendant\u2019s trial began. Defendant discusses trial evidence in the letter and tells Durr he will be called to court to testify on July 16, 2002. Defendant repeatedly tells Durr to \u201cplead the fifth\u201d because the \u201c[S]tate really need[s] you to get down on me to get a conviction.\u201d Defendant instructs Durr to \u201ctell your mother to call the [public defender] and get him to file a motion for you to plead the [fifth] so you don\u2019t have to come back here.\u201d Defendant ends the letter by telling Durr not to \u201cget down on me man\u201d and to \u201c[m]ake sure you call my momma o.k.\u201d As noted by the trial court, although Durr never received the letter, it is evidence of defendant\u2019s intent to influence Durr not to testify at defendant\u2019s trial. Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 301.\nSecond, the trial court\u2019s finding that \u201cthere was a common plan or scheme between the defendant and his mother to procure the unavailability of Mr. Durr invoking the Fifth Amendment\u201d is supported by the record. On multiple occasions Francine specifically instructed Durr to \u201cplead the Fifth\u201d and coached him on how to lie under oath during defendant\u2019s trial. The trial court found Durr to be an incredible witness, discrediting defendant\u2019s assertion that Durr had already made up his mind to plead the fifth. To the contrary, the phone conversations evidence a concerted effort on Francine\u2019s part to make sure Durr did not testify. The record also supports the trial court\u2019s finding that Durr and defendant were communicating:\n\u201cCD: That\u2019s it. ([I]naudible) then they\u2019ll say (inaudible). They\u2019ll try to call me as a witness. I wrote him a couple times (inaudible).\n* * *\nCD: (DQnaudible) when you talk to (inaudible) I\u2019m sending it there cause I gotta send it there first and then (inaudible) gotta send it to him.\n* * *\nFH: Yeah. They sure trying to use your statement against [defendant] cause that\u2019s all they got. That\u2019s the only thing they got is your statement. They can\u2019t find (inaudible).\n* * Hi\nFH: ([I]naudible) but I didn\u2019t know what he was talking about. I say you want to write [defendant].\nCD: Right.\nFH: You, you need this address (inaudible).\nHi Hi Hi\nCD: I told him \u2014 I wrote a letter and I told him I\u2019m gonna send it to you.\nFH: Yeah, that\u2019s what I been waiting for (inaudible).\n* * *\nFH: They must have took your letter that you sent to [defendant],\nCD: Yeah, that\u2019s what I think cause they\nFH: Yeah. Did you say anything in it?\nCD: No, uhn. Just told him, man, don\u2019t worry about nothing, everything will be cool. He told me \u2014 the lawyer said he was worried about me coming back and testify ***. ***\nHi Hi Hi\nCD: ([I]naudible[.]) I told him, I told him in my letter when I, when I get out we (inaudible) by the time I get out. And we going down when we get out.\nHi Hi Hi\nCD: I\u2019m gonna be cool. Tell him don\u2019t worry about it, man. ([I]naudible[.])\n* * *\nCD: Ok. I was gonna ask you what do you say. I was gonna ask you to ask them what he wanted me to say.\u201d\nThe record supports the trial court\u2019s finding that defendant and his mother engaged in a concerted effort to influence Durr not to testify. We reject defendant\u2019s contention that the State was required to show defendant actually caused Durr\u2019s unavailability. See Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526, 541, 830 N.E.2d 158, 171 (2005) (\u201cin collusion cases *** a defendant\u2019s joint effort with a witness to secure the latter\u2019s unavailability, regardless of whether the witness already decided \u2018on his own\u2019 not to testify, may be sufficient to support a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing\u201d). The State proved what it needed to: that defendant engaged in conduct intended to render Durr unavailable to testify at defendant\u2019s trial. See, e.g., Hampton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 301 (\u201cany conduct by an accused intended to render a witness against him unavailable to testify is wrongful and may result in forfeiture of the accused\u2019s privilege to be confronted by that witness\u201d); Edwards, 444 Mass, at 540-41, 830 N.E.2d at 171 (\u201c[a] finding that a defendant somehow influenced a witness\u2019s decision not to testify is not required to trigger the application of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine where there is collusion in implementing that decision or planning for its implementation\u201d); State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 2000) (\u201cit is the fact that a defendant\u2019s conduct interferes with the interest in having witnesses testify at a public trial that makes the defendant\u2019s conduct wrongful\u201d).\nWe cannot say that the trial court\u2019s exercise of discretion has been frustrated by an erroneous rule of law. Spicer, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 451. Because the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant engaged in conduct intended to render Durr unavailable to testify against him at trial, defendant forfeited his right to claim a confrontation clause violation under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine.\nDefendant next contends, and the State agrees, that this cause must be remanded for resentencing under People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63, 871 N.E.2d 1 (2007). In Hauschild, our supreme court found that the defendant\u2019s sentence for armed robbery while armed with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/18\u20141(a), 18\u20142(a)(2) (West 2000)) violated the proportionate penalties clause because the penalty for that offense was more severe than the penalty for the identical offense of armed violence predicated on robbery while carrying a firearm (720 ILCS 5/33A \u2014 1(c)(1) (West 2000)). Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 86-87.\nHere, defendant received a 15-year add-on to each of his four sentences for aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14(a)(1) (West 2000)). These add-ons make the sentences disproportionate to the penalty for armed violence predicated on criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/33A \u2014 2 (West 2000)), which contains identical elements. Under Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 86-87, the 15-year add-on for aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm is unconstitutional. We reverse defendant\u2019s four sentences for aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm and remand for resentencing.\nFinally, defendant contends, and the State agrees, that we should vacate one of his convictions for home invasion where there was only one physical act of illegal entry and vacate four of his convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault where each count was \u201cbased on the same four acts of penetration.\u201d Multiple convictions cannot stand where a single physical act is the basis for both charged. People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 565-66, 363 N.E.2d 838 (1977). Here, the record shows that defendant made only one illegal entry into the victim\u2019s home. Defendant may only be convicted of one count of home invasion. People v. Hicks, 181 Ill. 2d 541, 548-49, 693 N.E.2d 373 (1998); People v. Cole, 172 Ill. 2d 85, 101-02, 665 N.E.2d 1275 (1996). The record also shows that defendant\u2019s eight convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14(a)(4), (a)(8) (West 2002)) were based on the same four acts of sexual assault. Because there were only four acts, four of defendant\u2019s eight convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm must be vacated. People v. Coleman, 212 Ill. App. 3d 997, 1005, 571 N.E.2d 1035 (1991).\nIn conclusion, we find defendant forfeited his right to claim a confrontation clause violation under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine. We reverse defendant\u2019s four sentences for aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm and remand for resentencing. We order the mittimus corrected to reflect a single conviction for home invasion and four convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault according to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(1). 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(b)(1); People v. McCray, 273 Ill. App. 3d 396, 403, 653 N.E.2d 25 (1995).\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions; mittimus corrected.\nGARCIA, P.J., and McBRIDE, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE CAHILL" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Unsinn, and Arianne Stein, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Anita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Susan R. Schierl Sullivan, and Marti Jacobs, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1\u201408\u20143654\nOpinion filed December 17, 2010.\nRehearing denied January 28, 2011.\nMichael J. Pelletier, Patricia Unsinn, and Arianne Stein, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nAnita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Susan R. Schierl Sullivan, and Marti Jacobs, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0925-01", "first_page_order": 941, "last_page_order": 959 }