Whether the separation of powers clause allows the legislature to limit the scope of judicial discretion in sentencing by deeming certain aggravating and mitigating factors unnecessary

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1, The seperation of powers clause,as legislature has power to fix sentences. for mr.whatley crime and limit the scope of the judicial decsrition to imposing a sentence of aggravating and mitigating factors need : not be necessary by part sentencing equation if | legislature deem such factors inappréate. De-Novo. 2. As the suprem court address the attempt provision ; public act 91-404 subsection (A) held attempt murder statue is unconstitutional of the illinois const.Amend . ae el titi RECEIVED rights violate the proportionat penaltie clause arti 1,section 11, an law against double enhancement ,art4c1@CT 16 2020 EERE COOTER ; 2,section 10 amendment 6th,14th,5th,8th. and crue] an unusual punishment of the United States constitution althogh a facial challenge requires a showing that the . statue (720 ilcs 5/8-4-9 (west 2000) is invalid under any set of facts as applied to whatley. 3. the petitioner 6 amendment rights under the federel and state costitution was violated, even though sentencing does not concern the petitioners guilt or innonece, ; ineffective assistent of counsel during a setencing hearing . can result in prejudice under the prejudice prong of the strickland test for ineffective assistent of counsel becouse any amount of additional jail time has sixth amendnent const,amend,6 even if the trie} court : ee itself is free from constitutional flaws the petitioner wno based on the deficient performance of counsel,from either a conviction on a more serious counts or the imposition of 2 more sever sentence.const amend,S.see lafler v.cooper,132 Hill ve. 203. . see montgomery v.peterson, 846,f,2d,407,412, (7th cir,1938), in the context of a petitioner having rejected a page offet™ from the prosecution indeed the was a 21 year at 85%, the district court granted a conditional writ and ordered specific perfornance of the orginal offer.XIMMELMAN V.MORRISOM,477,u,8, MISSOURI “AWIAOAR | ) oat iM Oo Done oe a te LO ; : OPTSTION BELOW The order of the appellate court of illinois;first judicial] district ,which was publisbed in 2020 I1l,App,(ist Dist) 1-16-3179 was not published pursuant. to illinois suprem court Rule 23,is included herein in