excessive sentence claim in Illinois

2021See, e.g., People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 265-66 , 497 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (1986); People v. Reed, 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 54 , 118 N.E.3d 642 ; Johnson, 2019 IL 122956, ¶¶ 39-41 . ¶ 22 In Johnson, the defendant did essentially the same thing.

2021See, e.g., People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 265-66 , 497 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (1986); People v. Reed, 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 54 , 118 N.E.3d 642 ; Johnson, 2019 IL 122956, ¶¶ 39-41 . ¶ 22 In Johnson, the defendant did essentially the same thing.

2025To succeed on an excessive sentence claim, a defendant must show that the trial court abused its discretion, which occurs when a sentence “is greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law, or manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 212 . ¶ 39 The court exercised its discretion in imposing a sentence on Mr. Young within the statutory range, which spanned from 76 years to natural life.

2024A circuit court has “broad discretionary powers in imposing a sentence, and its sentencing decisions are entitled to great deference.” People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 212 (2010). ¶ 66 Substantial deference is given to the circuit court’s sentencing decision because the sentencing judge “is in a much better position to consider factors such as the defendant’s 16 credibility, demeanor, moral character, mentality, environment, habits, and age.” People v. Snyder, 2011 IL 111382, ¶ 36 .

2024See People v. Schnoor, 2019 IL App (4th) 170571, ¶ 99 , 145 N.E.3d 544 (addressing an excessive sentence claim).

2023See People v. Schnoor, 2019 IL App (4th) 170571, ¶ 99 , 145 N.E.3d 544 (addressing an excessive sentence claim).

2024We find that the circuit court applied the appropriate mitigating factors for juvenile offenders and the abuse of discretion standard applies where defendant’s challenge to his sentence amounts to an excessive sentence challenge. ¶ 65 A circuit court imposing a sentence within the statutory limits will only be deemed excessive and an abuse of discretion where the sentence is “greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law, or manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.” People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 210 (2000).

2023See People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 211 (2000).

2021People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2009).

2020“An example of an indisputably meritless legal theory is one which is completely contradicted by the record.” People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 16 , 912 N.E.2d 1204, 1212 (2009).

2021See, e.g., People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 265-66 , 497 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (1986); People v. Reed, 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 54 , 118 N.E.3d 642 ; Johnson, 2019 IL 122956, ¶¶ 39-41 . ¶ 22 In Johnson, the defendant did essentially the same thing.

2021See, e.g., People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 265-66 , 497 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (1986); People v. Reed, 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 54 , 118 N.E.3d 642 ; Johnson, 2019 IL 122956, ¶¶ 39-41 . ¶ 22 In Johnson, the defendant did essentially the same thing.

2022People v. Lusby, 2020 IL 124046, ¶ 35 . ¶ 65 We generally review an excessive-sentence claim for an abuse of discretion.

2021See Lusby, 2020 IL 124046, ¶¶ 38-52 ; see also Holman, 2017 IL 120655 , ¶¶ 48-50. ¶ 58 As a final note, because we find defendant’s sentencing hearing was Miller- compliant, his remaining arguments resemble an excessive sentence challenge which has been previously addressed on direct appeal.

2026He then argues, citing Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471-72 (2012), that his youth is an excellent basis for establishing his rehabilitative potential and the court failed to consider his youth. ¶ 75 Unfortunately for defendant’s claim, the trial court specifically stated it was considering the “character of the Defendant with the objective of restoring him to useful citizenship.” The language indubitably addresses defendant’s rehabilitation potential.

2025The State responds that Mr. Young’s claim is too conclusory and fails to state even the gist of a claim that his counsel performed deficiently or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiency. ¶ 34 The Act establishes procedures by which a criminal defendant may challenge his conviction or sentence based on a substantial deprivation of his state or federal constitutional rights. 725 ILCS 5/122–1(a)(1) (West 2022); People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79, 83 (2008).

2024See Brunton v. Kruger, 2015 IL 117663, ¶ 76 (“We require parties to preserve issues or claims for appeal; we do not require them to limit their arguments here to the same arguments that were made below.”). ¶ 108 In deciding the import of the court’s comments, McKinley is again instructive.

2023People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320, 332 (1996). ¶ 10 The State relies on People v. Johnson, 2019 IL 122956 , to reinforce its assertion that defendant’s challenge to the restitution amount as unsupported by the evidence is an excessive sentence claim.

2023See People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1, 18 , 896 N.E.2d 239, 249 (2008) (“[W]here the trial court clearly had an opportunity to review the same essential claim that was later raised on appeal, *** there was no forfeiture.”). ¶ 61 Under the circumstances presented, the record reflects that defendant was afforded a full and fair second opportunity to present his motion for reconsideration of his sentence, the only motion he chose to pursue during the proceedings below.

2023See People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1, 18 , 896 N.E.2d 239, 249 (2008) (“[W]here the trial court clearly had an opportunity to review the same essential claim that was later raised on appeal, *** there was no forfeiture.”). ¶ 61 Under the circumstances presented, the record reflects that defendant was afforded a full and fair second opportunity to present his motion for reconsideration of his sentence, the only motion he chose to pursue during the proceedings below.

2021See Lusby, 2020 IL 124046, ¶¶ 38-52 ; see also Holman, 2017 IL 120655 , ¶¶ 48-50. ¶ 58 As a final note, because we find defendant’s sentencing hearing was Miller- compliant, his remaining arguments resemble an excessive sentence challenge which has been previously addressed on direct appeal.

2021We will consider it regardless but find it without merit. ¶ 61 The circuit court retains “great discretion” to “fashion an appropriate sentence within the statutory limits.” People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 53 (1999).

2020This court has explained appellate review of a defendant’s excessive sentence claim as follows: “A trial court’s sentencing determination must be based on the particular circumstances of each case, including factors such as the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age. [Citations.] Generally, the trial court is in a better position than a court of review to determine an appropriate sentence based upon the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case. [Citation.] Thus, the trial court is the proper forum for the det

2020App. 3d 224, 234-35 , 819 N.E.2d 1274, 1284 (2004)); see also People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d - 13 - 205, 212-13, 940 N.E.2d 1062, 1066 (2010).