This court affirmed the convictions, but we remanded the case for resentencing because the trial judge did not state on the record his reasons for ordering the sentences to run consecutively. People v. Little, No. 5-03-0028 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). On remand, the circuit court again ordered defendant to serve the sentences consecutively, and it stated its reason for doing so was to protect the public from further criminal conduct.
¶ 4 In August 2004, we affirmed the defendant's convictions on direct appeal, but because it was “not clear from the record what motivated the trial court to order that the sentences imposed on [the] defendant's aggravated battery and attempted escape convictions be served consecutively to each other,” we remanded for resentencing. People v. Little, No. 5–03–0028, order at 2, 349 Ill.App.3d 1051, 322 Ill.Dec. 370, 890 N.E.2d 1289 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In October 2004, indicating that it was of the opinion that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant (730 ILCS 5/5–8–4(b) (West 2002)), the trial court resentenced the defendant and again imposed consecutive three-year terms of imprisonment on his convictions.