People v. Hambrick, 973 N.E.2d 1060

Hambrick was convicted by jury of two counts of aggravated DUI resulting in death, merged to a single count, and sentenced to three years in prison.
The offense involved a July 11, 2008 indictment; second jury trial after a prior mistrial, with evidence showing alcohol consumption and a fatal crash in August 2007.
Defendant’s BAC at hospital was 0.137; victim died from neck injuries sustained in the collision.
At sentencing, the court sought to determine whether extraordinary circumstances warranted probation, not the sole statutory alternative.
The court found no extraordinary circumstances; it deemed a three-year prison term warranted to deter and to avoid devaluing the offense, despite family hardship.
On appeal, Hambrick argued the court applied an incorrect standard and abused discretion by not imposing probation under extraordinary circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard of review for sentencing	Hambrick argues de novo review is appropriate due to misstatement.	Hambrick contends discretionary review should apply.	Abuse of discretion standard applies.
Whether extraordinary circumstances justified probation	Extraordinary circumstances existed requiring probation.	Circumstances did not rise to extraordinary level; probation unwarranted.	No abuse; probation not required; three-year term affirmed.

People v. Winningham, 391 Ill. App. 3d 476 (2009) (discretionary sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Newborn, 379 Ill. App. 3d 240 (2008) (review standard for probation decisions discussed)
People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
Vasquez, 2012 IL App (2d) 101132 (2012) (extraordinary circumstances limit trial court discretion)
Maldonado, 386 Ill. App. 3d 964 (2008) (extraordinary circumstances framework)
People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (2010) (sentencing review respects court's weigh of factors)