Addressing circumstances similar to the present case, the Third District held that convictions of resisting a peace officer and aggravated battery were both premised on the same physical act. People v. Keefer, 229 Ill. App. 3d 582, 584 (1992). There, the defendant was told by an officer that, if he did not cooperate, he would be charged with resisting arrest.
We conclude that the act of taking the purse and the act of pushing the victim to the ground were overt outward manifestations that support the offenses of robbery and aggravated battery. Defendant's reliance on People v. Keefer, 229 Ill. App. 3d 582, 593 N.E.2d 1109 (1992), is unpersuasive. In Keefer, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery and resisting a peace officer.
, the State treated defendant's conduct of kicking and scratching as part of the same "act" that caused bodily harm and injury to Carter. Id.; compare People v. Keefer, 229 Ill.App.3d 582, 584 (1992) (same "act" formed basis of aggravated battery of peace officer and resisting arrest convictions where the defendant, as part of the same "struggle" with an officer, both grabbed the officer's fingers and slammed the officer into a wall) with People v. Pearson, 331 Ill.App.3d 312, 322 (2002) (distinguishing Keefer and finding that the defendant taking the victim's purse and pushing her to the ground constituted multiple acts). ¶ 20 The parties discuss People v. Hagler, 402 Ill.App.3d 149 (2010), at length, each arguing that the case supports its position.
In determining whether conduct involved multiple acts or a single act, courts may also consider the time interval between successive parts of defendant's conduct, the existence of an intervening act, and whether the conduct occurred at the same location. People v. Keefer, 229 Ill. App. 3d 582, 584 (1992).¶ 45 Alexander's conduct involved multiple acts.
Under such circumstances, multiple convictions and sentences arising out of such arguably separate acts cannot stand. Id. at 345; People v. Keefer, 229 Ill. App. 3d 582, 584 (1992). ¶ 49
We are mindful that the determination of what constitutes a physical act requires a detailed evaluation of the defendant's conduct based upon the record as presented and that such fact-specific determinations intrinsically lack uniformity. (See People v. Johnson (1989), 128 Ill.2d 253, 288-89, 538 N.E.2d 1118, 1133-34 (two gunshots fired at the victim interrupted by the shooting and robbery of a second victim constituted two physical acts); People v. Mormon (1982), 92 Ill.2d 268, 269-70, 442 N.E.2d 250, 251 (convictions for rape and armed violence based on the rape were improper when they both arose from the same physical act); People v. Myers (1981), 85 Ill.2d 281, 288-89, 426 N.E.2d 535, 538 (finding two physical acts when the defendant stabbed his victim twice, but after the first stabbing threatened a second victim); People v. Keefer (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 582, 584, 593 N.E.2d 1109, 1110-11 (convictions for both aggravated battery and resisting a peace officer could not stand when both were based on the same physical act — one struggle); People v. Ayala (1990), 208 Ill. App.3d 586, 601, 567 N.E.2d 450, 460 (two gunshots fired at the victim were two distinct acts when, in between the first and second shot, the victim fell, began to crawl away, and stopped to notice a gathering crowd); People v. Hope (1986), 142 Ill. App.3d 171, 176, 491 N.E.2d 785, 788-89 (stabbing the victim four times in rapid succession without intervening events was one physical act); People v. Ellis (1986), 143 Ill. App.3d 892, 897, 493 N.E.2d 739, 742-43 (defendant's conduct constituted one physical act when he punched the victim in the back of the head and neck and, after she turned around to face him, struck her in the nose); People v. Gvojic (1987), 160 Ill. App.3d 1065, 1071, 513 N.E.2d 1083, 1087 (repeated stabbings of the victim's head, throat, chest, and limbs were one physical act in that th
) Among the factors which courts must consider in determining whether a defendant's conduct constituted a single act or several separate acts are: (1) the time interval between the successive parts of the defendant's conduct; (2) the existence of an intervening act or event; and (3) whether the conduct occurred at the same location. People v. Keefer (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 582, 584, 593 N.E.2d 1109, 1110. In this case, the record is clear that there was a lengthy interval between the defendant's two entries into Four Corners Tap.
For the ensuing reasons, we find that plain error was committed here and thus will consider the defendant's argument. People v. Keefer (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 582, 593 N.E.2d 1109. It is well settled that multiple convictions based on the same physical act cannot stand.