People v. Wilson
79 N.E.3d 240
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Daejohn Wilson (then 19) 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 showed Wilson had an IEP, school disciplinary history including expulsion, juvenile adjudications, and diagnoses (depressive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, cannabis abuse); letters attested to good character and vocational certifications.
- At sentencing the court considered mitigation and aggravation, sentenced Wilson to 18 years (aggravated battery) and a concurrent 3 years (possession), and issued a supplemental order imposing multiple fines/fees including a $25 "Crimestopper Fee."
- The supplemental order credited Wilson with 201 days of $5/day credit (total $1,005) which the court applied against monetary obligations.
- Wilson appealed, arguing his sentence was excessive (court failed to give adequate weight to youth, mental health, rehabilitation) and the $25 Crimestopper charge was an unauthorized fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive sentence | State: sentence within statutory range and court considered factors. | Wilson: court failed to adequately consider youth, mental illness, and rehabilitation. | Affirmed — sentence within range; record shows court considered mitigation; no abuse of discretion. |
| Unauthorized Crimestopper charge | State: Castleberry abolishes void-sentence rule so fine cannot be vacated on appeal. | Wilson: charge is statutorily authorized only for probation; thus unauthorized and reviewable under plain-error second prong. | Court erred in imposing charge but error not reversible — forfeited and moot because $5/day credit satisfied fines/fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (sentencing review standard; deference to trial court)
- People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (sentence abuse-of-discretion standard)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (second-prong plain error where procedural deprivation affected fair sentencing)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (abolition of void-sentence rule in certain contexts)
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (forfeiture doctrine for unpreserved issues)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain-error framework)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain-error second-prong prejudice presumption explanation)
- People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1 (defendant’s burden under second-prong plain error)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (first step of plain error review: determine if error occurred)
- People v. Lynn, 102 Ill. 2d 267 (completion/satisfaction of sentence renders challenge moot)
- People v. Dowding, 388 Ill. App. 3d 936 (applying $5-per-day credit to satisfy Crime Stoppers charge)