2019 IL App (1st) 173131
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Eddie Williams was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver heroin (1–15 grams) after officers observed him shouting a street term for heroin and toss a bag containing 16 smaller bags totaling ~3.75 grams.
- He had an extensive criminal history (multiple prior felonies including prior delivery convictions) and was sentenced as a Class X offender.
- At sentencing the court reviewed statutory aggravating and mitigating factors, then imposed a nine-year prison term (within the 6–30 year Class X range).
- During the court’s recitation of statutory factors it orally stated the aggravator “the defendant received compensation for committing the offense,” but immediately noted “that is the charge itself.”
- Defendant argued on appeal the court improperly relied on compensation (a factor inherent in delivery offenses) as aggravation and asked for resentencing; the State contended forfeiture and that any error was harmless.
- The appellate court reviewed the record, concluded the court’s remark was a verbatim recitation of a statutory factor (not a factual finding), and that even if the court referenced benefit it gave it minimal weight; affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly used "compensation" (a factor implicit in delivery offenses) as an aggravating factor, requiring resentencing | The People argued the claim was forfeited but reviewed on the merits; the record shows the court did not rely on compensation and the sentence is lawful | Williams argued compensation is implicit in intent-to-deliver and using it in aggravation double-counts the same factor, and the court’s comments make it impossible to determine the weight given, so remand is required | Court affirmed: the remark was a verbatim statutory recitation, not a factual finding; defendant failed to show the court relied on the improper factor; any consideration was minimal; sentence affirmed |
| Proper standard of review for this claim (de novo vs. abuse of discretion) | The People urged abuse of discretion | Williams urged de novo review (citing Chaney) | Court declined to decide because result is the same under either standard; resolution unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (factor implicit in offense cannot be used to aggravate sentence)
- People v. Conover, 84 Ill. 2d 400 (1981) (remand required when record does not show how much weight court gave an improper factor)
- People v. Gonzalez, 151 Ill. 2d 79 (1992) (legislature is presumed to have considered factors inherent in offense when setting sentencing ranges)
- People v. M.I.D., 324 Ill. App. 3d 156 (2001) (receipt or expectation of compensation is inherent in delivery offenses and should not independently increase sentence)
- People v. Bowman, 357 Ill. App. 3d 290 (2005) (sentencing courts may consider the nature and circumstances of the offense)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (2010) (trial court’s sentencing discretion is afforded great deference)