People v. Etherton, 2017 IL App (5th) 140427

Defendant Randy Etherton was convicted by a jury of residential burglary (Class 1 felony) following discovery of stolen jewelry and tool in his vehicle and matching boot impressions.
At trial defendant was 34; because of prior convictions he was sentenced as a Class X offender (6–30 years).
Sentencing evidence: family letters and testimony about defendant’s role as a provider, his attendance at substance-abuse treatment, employment, and caretaking; defendant apologized and asserted rehabilitation.
The State urged a 26-year sentence; the trial court emphasized Etherton’s extensive, decades-long criminal history (including a federal sentence for methamphetamine conspiracy) and imposed 20 years plus 3 years MSR.
Defendant moved to reconsider; the motion was denied and he appealed, arguing (1) the appellate abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences should be abandoned or modified, and (2) his 20-year sentence was excessive given mitigating evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of sentences should be abandoned	Appellate court applied existing precedent and must follow stare decisis	The abuse-of-discretion standard is inconsistent with the Illinois Constitution, Rule 615(b), and the Code; courts should more freely reduce sentences to better effectuate art. I, § 11	Rejected; court is bound by supreme court precedent applying abuse-of-discretion review but encouraged the supreme court to revisit Perruquet dissent’s suggestion to also review conformity with constitutional/statutory guidelines
Whether the 20-year sentence was excessive/abused discretion	Sentence within statutory range and trial court considered aggravating and mitigating factors	Trial court failed to give adequate weight to rehabilitation and mitigating evidence; sentence is excessive	Affirmed; sentence within range, court considered factors and defendant failed to show arbitrarily unreasonable sentence

People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill. 2d 149 (1977) (supreme court held sentence not alterable on review absent abuse of discretion; dissent urged review for conformity with constitutional/statutory guidelines)
Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc., 316 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (2000) (appellate courts bound by stare decisis)
People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (2000) (trial court given broad discretion in sentencing)
People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1 (2000) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority, 98 Ill. 2d 546 (1983) (appellate courts lack authority to overrule supreme court precedent)
People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion is highly deferential standard)
People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (2010) (Rule 615(b) reduction power is to be used cautiously)
People v. Diestelhorst, 344 Ill. App. 3d 1172 (2003) (trial court best positioned to assess credibility and sentencing factors)
People v. Boclair, 225 Ill. App. 3d 331 (1992) (sentence presumed proper if within statutory range)
People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482 (1981) (art. I, § 11 does not require detailed explanation of the sentencing balancing process)