concurring in part and dissenting in part:
L concur in the majority’s holding that defendant’s sentence for theft was not excessive. However, 1 disagree with the finding that defendant’s conviction for official misconduct should be vacated and 1 dissent from that portion of this disposition.
Multiple convictions and concurrent sentences are allowed where, as here, the defendant commits several acts, despite their interrelationship. People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill. 2d 58 (1998). The term “act” as the majority notes, includes “any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.” People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977). Official misconduct and theft are separate offenses, with the defendant’s knowledge of his wrongdoing as a public official in committing theft being the additional “act” necessary to support the charging of different offenses. People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977).
As I find that the offenses of official misconduct and theft were separate, I would affirm the defendant’s convictions for both official misconduct and theft.