Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Carini, 151 Ill. App. 3d 264 (1986)
The only case cited in its brief, People v. Schlemm (1980), 82 Ill. App. 3d 639, 402 N.E.2d 810, is not supportive of that proposition and, in any event, is readily distinguishable since, there, the defendant was also convicted of the murders of the two individuals whose bodies he subsequently concealed.
The opinion
Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I dissent from that portion of the opinion which would reduce the extended terms (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5— 3.2(b)(2)) upon the convictions of concealment of homicidal deaths (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 9 — 3.1(a)).
The imposition of the extended terms is authorized “[b]y exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty.” The key adjectives are stated in the disjunctive and in the alternative.
This court has affirmed the imposition of an extended term in People v. Warfel (1979), 67 Ill. App. 3d 620 , 385 N.E.2d 175 , and People v. Jones (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 99 , 391 N.E.2d 767 . Each case was concerned with the mistreatment of victims who survived and the opinions were written in the context of pain and fear brutally imposed on living persons. There was no occasion to seriously consider the disjunctive alternative found in the word “heinous.”
In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 1050 (1971), the word “heinous” is defined as “hatefully or shockingly evil”; “grossly bad” or “enormously and flagrantly criminal.” Its meaning so stated would not seem to require pain and suffering of a living individual.
The majority opinion suggests that dismemberment of the bodies might be considered “exceptionally brutal,” but that the acts here should not be considered “exceptional.” This record does not suggest that the disposal of the bodies was a temporary measure to aid escape. It is reasonable to infer that the defendant hoped, if he did not expect, that the two bodies would be lost forever. The bodies were ultimately mutilated just as effectively as if defendant had used acid, fire, or a hacksaw. Unless one is to accept the reputed methods of gangsters, the conduct is «1 . » heinous.
I would affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.