People v. Wilson
79 N.E.3d 240
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daejohn Wilson (19 at sentencing) was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery (Class X) for shooting Bilal Wilkins and unlawful possession of a firearm (Class 4) as a person under 21 with a prior juvenile aggravated-battery adjudication.
- PSI and testimony reflected defendant’s youth, juvenile adjudications, school disciplinary history (including expulsion), diagnoses of depressive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and cannabis abuse, and letters attesting to good character and vocational certifications.
- Sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment for aggravated battery and a concurrent 3 years for unlawful possession; court ordered various fines and fees in a supplemental sentencing order, including a $25 "Crimestopper" assessment.
- Defendant claimed his sentence was excessive for insufficient consideration of mitigating factors (youth, mental illness, rehabilitation potential) and challenged the $25 Crimestopper assessment as unauthorized when incarceration, not probation, was imposed.
- The circuit court awarded 201 days of $5-per-day credit (total $1005), which the appellate court found covered the fines that are compensable by the credit, rendering the fine challenge moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive sentence | Sentence within statutory range and court considered mitigation; therefore valid | Court failed to adequately consider youth, mental health, and rehabilitation potential | Affirmed — sentences (18 and 3 years) within statutory ranges and record shows court considered mitigation; no abuse of discretion |
| Crimestopper assessment | Assessment properly imposed and, even if error, Castleberry bars collateral attack on forfeited sentencing errors | Assessment unauthorized because statute permits it only when defendant is placed on probation; issue preserved only for plain error review | Forfeited but court erred in imposing the assessment; not reversible plain error and moot because $5-per-day credit satisfied the fines; challenge dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill.2d 205 (trial court’s sentencing discretion and deference to circuit court)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill.2d 32 (unauthorized fine reversible plain error where statutory procedure required an evidentiary hearing)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (limits on collateral challenges to sentencing errors and abolition of the void-sentence rule)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (plain-error doctrine standard)
- People v. Lynn, 102 Ill.2d 267 (challenge to a sentence becomes moot once sentence is satisfied)