People v. Rios
960 N.E.2d 70
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Marci A. Rios was charged in December 2008 with unlawful possession with intent to deliver heroin, two counts of unlawful delivery of heroin, and unlawful possession with intent to deliver cannabis.
- In February 2009, the information was amended to modify the heroin amount from more than 1 but less than 15 grams to more than 5 but less than 15 grams.
- Defendant pled guilty to all four charges in February 2009, with a factual basis showing heroin and cannabis findings from the raid on her residence and related controlled buys.
- Judge Travers sentenced on April 22, 2009 to concurrent terms: 12 years (heroin possession with intent to deliver), 5 years (two counts of heroin delivery), and 3 years (cannabis possession with intent to deliver).
- Defendant moved to reconsider the sentence in May 2009; the court denied, and this court remanded for compliance with Rule 604(d).
- On remand, after a new hearing in June 2010, the court again denied the motion to reconsider, and defendant appealed assessing alleged sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by considering a factor in aggravation that was inherent in the offense | Rios contends the court impermissibly used the offense’s proceeds as aggravation | Rios argues the court relied on improper factors not supported by the record | No reversible error; court’s discussion reflected proper consideration of the proceeds in relation to the offense |
| Whether the court relied on unsupported or mistaken facts to aggravate the sentence | State asserts statements were supported by the record | Rios asserts the two asserted facts were not supported | No error; the statements were reasonable inferences from the record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Conover, 84 Ill.2d 400 (1981) (distinguishes proceeds of the crime from payments to commit the crime)
- People v. M.I.D., 324 Ill.App.3d 156 (2001) (court may consider proceeds to the extent they reflect involvement and motivation)
- People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166 (2010) (plain-error framework for unpreserved sentencing errors)
- People v. Hammock, 68 Ill.App.3d 34 (1979) (reconciling misapplied factual assertions in sentencing)
- People v. Peterson, 227 Ill.App.3d 20 (1992) (proceeds vs. payment analysis in aggravation)