People v. Hibbler
129 N.E.3d 755
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In Sept 2015, Terrell Hibbler pleaded guilty to threatening a public official and received 30 months’ probation.
- In Oct 2015 he was indicted for armed robbery and resisting a peace officer; the State petitioned to revoke his probation.
- In Aug 2016 a jury convicted Hibbler of armed robbery and resisting; the trial court found the petition to revoke proven.
- A PSI (filed 7 days before sentencing) detailed jail rule violations and requested restitution; defense counsel stated no objection to the PSI at the sentencing hearing.
- In Sept 2016 the court sentenced Hibbler to 30 years (armed robbery), 3 years (resisting), and 5 years (threatening a public official), all concurrent, and ordered restitution but did not specify timing or installment vs lump sum.
- Hibbler appealed, raising claims about reliance on PSI jail misconduct, double enhancement, defective restitution order, ineffective assistance for failing to challenge restitution amount, and improper sentencing after probation revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court relied on jail misconduct in PSI without live testimony | State: PSI was disclosed and unobjected to; court may rely on PSI contents | Hibbler: Court erred by considering jail rule violations without witnesses | Held for State — defense waived/acquiesced; PSI properly considered when unobjected to |
| Double enhancement by treating pointing a gun as aggravator | State: Defendant’s conduct exceeded baseline armed robbery (pointing at chest, later fight with officer) | Hibbler: Pointing a gun is inherent to armed robbery; can’t be used twice | Held for State — conduct threatened greater harm than minimal offense; not double enhancement |
| Restitution order failed to specify payment timing/manner | State: Issue waived by failure to object | Hibbler: Order incomplete without lump sum/installment and timeframe | Held for Hibbler — remand required to fix timing/manner per statute |
| Ineffective assistance for not challenging restitution amount in PSI | State: Counsel had a strategy and argued restitution mitigation; no prejudice shown | Hibbler: Counsel should have challenged unsupported PSI restitution figures | Held for State — no ineffective assistance shown on record; defendant fails to show prejudice |
| Sentencing after probation revocation relied on subsequent conduct | State: Court may consider conduct on probation as bearing on rehabilitative potential | Hibbler: Sentence punished subsequent conduct rather than original offense | Held for State — court permissibly considered probation conduct for sentencing; sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Powell, 199 Ill. App. 3d 291 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (failure to object to PSI waives challenge to its contents)
- People v. Willis, 361 Ill. App. 3d 527 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (defendant forfeited challenge to PSI disciplinary reports when unobjected to)
- People v. Davis, 252 Ill. App. 3d 812 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (sentencing court may treat conduct exceeding minimal elements as aggravating)
- People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256 (Ill. 1986) (degree of harm and circumstances may justify harsher sentence even when harm is implicit)
- People v. Young, 138 Ill. App. 3d 130 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) (upon probation revocation, court may consider conduct on probation as evidence of rehabilitative potential)