trial, we need not address this contention. III. Consecutive Sentences Defendant’s next two arguments attack his consecutive sentences. Defendant contends that his consecutive sentences must be vacated because they violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and because there was a substantial change in the criminal objective between the occurrence of the armed robbery and the aggravated criminal sexual assault. We have granted defendant a new trial and it would be premature to consider defendant’s sentencing claims. We note, however, that in People v. Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269, 286 (2001), the Illinois Supreme Court held that “Apprendi concerns are not implicated by consecutive sentencing.” See also People v. Carney, 196 Ill. 2d 518 (2001) (<HOLDING>). IV Jury Instructions Defendant’s final
holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not apply to capital sentencing schemes