March 27, 2001
NO. 4-99-0755
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID A. BELCHER, Defendant-Appellant. | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 96CF454 Honorable John G. Townsend, Judge Presiding. |
JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:
This case returns to us after remand. On October 29, 1996, defendant, DavidA. Belcher, pleaded guilty to having committed one count of first degree murder(count XII) (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 1996)) on February 28, 1996, in exchangefor the State dismissing the other counts against him. There was no agreement asto sentence. On November 27, 1996, after finding defendant eligible for thedeath penalty, the trial court sentenced him to 60 years' imprisonment.Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider sentence, and weremanded for the filing of a new motion to reconsider sentence and a proper Rule604(d) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) certificate. People v. Belcher, 4-96-0959(July 21, 1998) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We also refuseddefendant's request for leave to file a motion to withdraw guilty plea, which hemade because a portion of the insanity defense statute had been declaredunconstitutional.
Res judicata does not apply to this case because no final orderhas been entered by this court. This case comes to us, although for the secondtime, on direct appeal. Defendant now argues that his guilty plea was notknowingly and intelligently made because premised on a misapprehension of law.We affirm.
We could refuse to reconsider our ruling under the doctrine of law of thecase, but we are not bound to do so. People v. Huff, No. 88852, slip op.at 3-4 (January 29, 2001). Certainly the supreme court will be allowed toconsider the issue. We choose to address the question on its merits.
Prior to the time defendant committed the offense, section 6-2 of theCriminal Code of 1961 defined the insanity defense as follows:
"(a) A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of suchconduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacityeither to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct tothe requirements of law." (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 1994).
Public Act 89-404 amended the insanity defense to delete the emphasizedlanguage, language which defendant refers to as the "prong two"defense. Pub. Act 89-404,