People v. Johnson
2017 IL App (4th) 160853
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Marcus A. Johnson (born 1996) waived juvenile jurisdiction and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery for an incident in March 2014 where victims believed a gun was pointed at them in their home; no weapon was recovered.
- Victims: a 71-year-old woman (Runge) and her 15‑year‑old daughter; defendant allegedly pushed the daughter down and pointed what she perceived as a gun at her forehead.
- PSI and exhibits showed prior juvenile adjudications, gang affiliation references, threatening letters written while detained, and behavior (laughing in squad car) the State argued showed lack of remorse and high risk of reoffense.
- Trial court initially sentenced defendant to 24 years (extended term), then—after motions, an interlocutory appellate filing and dismissal, and the court’s sua sponte reconsideration—entered an amended 16‑year sentence; later proceedings produced further amended judgments and remands; ultimately the court again imposed 16 years and defendant appealed.
- On appeal defendant argued the court improperly relied on as an aggravating factor that he indicated he had a firearm, which he contends is inherent in the offense of aggravated robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court retained jurisdiction to modify sentence after defendant filed and then dismissed an appeal from the denial of his motion to reconsider | State: dismissal of appeal did not reinvest trial court absent specific appellate remand; October 2 order void if jurisdiction lacked | Johnson: dismissal within 30 days returned jurisdiction and allowed court to reconsider sentence | Court: jurisdiction returned when appeal was dismissed and mandate filed; court acted within the 30‑day window, so October 2 order valid |
| Whether sentencing court improperly considered as aggravation that defendant indicated he had a firearm (a factor inherent to aggravated robbery) | State: sentence proper; court may consider nature/circumstances and degree of harm | Johnson: court erred by using firearm‑possession indication as aggravating because it is an element of the offense | Court: no reversible error—court expressly treated the threat of a weapon as inherent but properly aggravated based on the offense occurring inside victims’ home, gun pointed at victim’s forehead, defendant’s lack of remorse and other aggravating factors |
| Whether the claim is reviewable despite not being raised below (procedural default) | State: issue forfeited | Johnson: requests plain‑error review | Court: applied plain‑error threshold and found no clear or obvious error, so no relief |
| Whether sentence was excessive given defendant’s youth and mitigation | Defense: youth, troubled background, limited maturity warrant lesser sentence | State: prior history, escalation, gang involvement support extended term | Court: age was mitigating but outweighed by prior felonies, attitude, gang embrace, and victim impact; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 4 N.E.3d 474 (Ill. 2014) (trial court generally loses jurisdiction 30 days after final judgment)
- People v. Vasquez, 791 N.E.2d 33 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (dismissal of appeal under fugitive rule does not necessarily reinvest trial court long after finality)
- People v. Miraglia, 753 N.E.2d 398 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (trial court cannot extend appeal time by repeatedly accepting successive postjudgment motions)
- People v. Saldivar, 497 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 1986) (court may consider nature and circumstances of offense and degree of harm when sentencing)
- People v. Piatkowski, 870 N.E.2d 403 (Ill. 2007) (plain‑error doctrine permits review of unpreserved errors only when clear or obvious error affected fairness or the outcome)