People v. Etherton
2017 IL App (5th) 140427
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Randy Etherton was convicted by a jury of one count of residential burglary (Class 1 felony) after police found stolen jewelry and a Dremel tool in his vehicle and boot tread impressions at the victim’s residence.
- At sentencing Etherton was treated as a Class X offender due to extensive prior convictions and faced a 6–30 year range; the trial court imposed 20 years plus 3 years supervised release.
- Mitigating evidence included family support, efforts at substance-abuse treatment, steady employment, and caretaking responsibilities; aggravating evidence included a long criminal history and commission of the offense while on federal supervised release.
- Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which was denied, and appealed arguing (1) the appellate abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences should be abandoned/modified, and (2) the 20-year sentence was excessive.
- The Fifth District affirmed, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, finding the sentence within the statutory range and not an abuse of discretion given the seriousness of the offense and defendant’s criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences should be abandoned or expanded | Appellee (State) argued existing precedent governs and appellate courts must apply abuse-of-discretion | Etherton argued abuse-of-discretion is inconsistent with Ill. Const. art. I §11, Rule 615(b), and the Code and urged a standard allowing reduction when a lesser sentence better serves constitutional goals | Court declined to abandon standard; bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent but invited supreme court to reconsider dissenting approach in Perruquet |
| Whether the 20-year Class X sentence was excessive or an abuse of discretion | State urged a lengthy sentence based on defendant’s extensive criminal history and need for deterrence/protection | Etherton argued mitigating factors (rehabilitation efforts, family support, no weapon, victim absent) warranted a lower sentence | Sentence affirmed: within statutory range, trial court considered aggravating/mitigating factors, and decision was not arbitrary or manifestly disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill. 2d 149 (1977) (discusses abuse-of-discretion standard and contains Justice Goldenhersh’s dissent urging review for conformity with constitutional/statutory sentencing guidelines)
- People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (2000) (trial court has broad discretion in sentencing and appellate review is for abuse of discretion)
- Coleman v. People, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion is highly deferential standard)
- People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1 (2000) (defines abuse-of-discretion in sentencing context)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (2010) (appellate power to reduce sentence under Rule 615(b) should be exercised cautiously)
- Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority, 98 Ill. 2d 546 (1983) (lower courts are bound by supreme court precedent)
- People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482 (1981) (constitutional provision requiring sentences reflect seriousness and objective of rehabilitation does not mandate a detailed record of the balancing process)
- People v. Diestelhorst, 344 Ill. App. 3d 1172 (2003) (trial court best positioned to evaluate factors relevant to sentencing)
- People v. Boclair, 225 Ill. App. 3d 331 (1992) (sentences within statutory range are presumed proper)