People v. McGee
177 N.E.3d 29
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Liedgrin E. McGee was convicted by a jury of retail theft of property valued under $300 after stealing shirts from Macy’s.
- Prior retail-theft convictions elevated the offense to a Class 4 felony and, because of prior felonies, made McGee eligible for an extended-term sentence (3–6 years).
- The presentence investigation report (PSI) showed an extensive criminal history (trespass, attempted aggravated robbery, domestic/aggravated battery, resisting, drug and vehicle offenses, multiple retail thefts) and prior prison terms.
- McGee committed the theft while on mandatory supervised release from a 2015 three-year prison term, and he previously failed to appear for an earlier sentencing date and fled the jurisdiction.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed a four-year extended-term sentence (above the three-year minimum), citing the extensive criminal history and McGee’s role-modeling for his young child.
- McGee appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four-year extended-term sentence was excessive | Sentence is within statutory range and appropriate given McGee’s extensive criminal history and need to protect the public | Sentence is disproportionate to the petty nature of the theft; prior failures to rehabilitate mean long prison time is pointless (relying on People v. Allen) | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court properly considered aggravation (criminal history) and public protection |
| Whether appellate courts should create a "petty-offense" exception to legislatively prescribed enhanced sentencing for recidivists | Courts should defer to the legislature and trial courts in applying statutory sentencing ranges | Allen argued courts may temper enhanced sentences where offense harm is minimal and rehabilitation unlikely | Rejected Allen’s majority; appellate court agrees with Allen dissent and Cunningham: no judicially created exception; legislature sets ranges, and trial court discretion governs |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183 (articulates standard that a sentence within statutory limits will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
- People v. Roberts, 338 Ill. App. 3d 245 (2003) (trial court has wide latitude in sentencing and must consider aggravating and mitigating factors)
- People v. Evans, 373 Ill. App. 3d 948 (2007) (court must balance retributive and rehabilitative purposes and consider seriousness and likelihood of restoration)
- People v. Jones, 2019 IL App (1st) 170478 (2019) (sentencing must be based on case particulars, including criminal history and public protection)
- People v. Allen, 2017 IL App (1st) 151540 (2017) (majority reduced an enhanced sentence for a petty theft; held offense seriousness can temper enhanced sentencing)
- People v. Busse, 2016 IL App (1st) 142941 (2016) (majority opinion creating a precedent for reducing enhanced sentences for low-harm thefts)
- People v. Cunningham, 2018 IL App (4th) 150395 (2018) (rejects Allen majority’s approach and upholds deference to legislature and trial court discretion)
- People v. Taylor, 102 Ill. 2d 201 (1984) (legislature, not courts, defines offenses and penalties)