People v. Means
74 N.E.3d 43
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Stacey Means was convicted after a bench trial of delivery of less than one gram of heroin; the school-zone count was dismissed pretrial.
- Under stipulation, the seized bags contained 0.5 grams of heroin and chain of custody was proper; officer testified he bought the heroin with prerecorded funds and identified Means after he was detained.
- Means had five prior drug-related convictions between 2008 and 2012, including prior prison terms; his prior Class 2 felony made him eligible for an extended-term sentence (7–14 years).
- At sentencing the State highlighted his repeated drug convictions; defense emphasized family ties, GED efforts, and participation in correctional programs and past drug treatment.
- The trial court imposed an extended nine-year term plus two years’ mandatory supervised release; defendant filed a motion to reconsider which was denied.
- On appeal Means challenged sentence as excessive and urged the controlled-substance fine should be $1,000 (Class 2) rather than $2,000 (Class 1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Means) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nine-year extended term was excessive | Sentence within statutory extended range and supported by defendant's recidivism | Nine years is excessive given small quantity, nonviolent history, substance abuse indicators, and taxpayer cost | Affirmed — within statutory range; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court punished defendant for exercising right to trial | Not argued that court punished for trial; no record evidence of such punishment | Claim that longer sentence was motivated by exercising right to go to trial | Rejected — no indication court punished Means for going to trial |
| Whether trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence | Court considered PSI, allocution, rehabilitation potential, and other factors | Court’s recitation of factors was boilerplate and ignored mitigation | Rejected — presumption court considered mitigating evidence; failure to detail reasoning not reversible error |
| Proper amount of controlled-substance fine | Imposed $2,000 fine (apparently reflecting Class 1 amount) | Fine should be $1,000 for Class 2 conviction | Remanded administratively: reduce fine to $1,000; clerk to correct fines order |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 168 Ill. 2d 367 (discretion of trial court in sentencing; reversal only for abuse)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (standard for reviewing sentences within statutory limits)
- People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (trial court’s superior position to assess credibility and other sentencing factors)
- People v. Evans, 373 Ill. App. 3d 948 (failure to detail sentencing analysis is not reversible error)
- People v. Anderson, 325 Ill. App. 3d 624 (presumption that trial court considered mitigating evidence)
- People v. Streit, 142 Ill. 2d 13 (court not bound by prosecution’s sentencing recommendation)
- People v. Flores, 404 Ill. App. 3d 155 (mitigating factors do not require minimum sentence)
- People v. Moriarty, 25 Ill. 2d 565 (trial court may not punish defendant for exercising right to trial)
- People v. Latto, 304 Ill. App. 3d 791 (sentence may be set aside if record shows punishment for demanding trial)
- People v. Carroll, 260 Ill. App. 3d 319 (clarifies when sentence reflects punishment for exercising trial rights)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (basis for plain-error review of fines/assessments)
- People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306 (procedural forfeiture principles)