reweigh factors in Illinois

2022People v. Hageman, 2020 IL App (3d) 170637, ¶ 19 (“It is not our duty on appeal to reweigh the factors involved in the circuit court’s sentencing 9 decision.”).

2020“It is not our duty on appeal to reweigh the factors involved in the circuit court’s sentencing decision.” People v. Hageman, 2020 IL App (3d) 170637, ¶ 19 , 146 N.E.3d 793 . ¶ 24 Parenthetically, defendant raised these claims on appeal, after having the benefit of the comments of both her own counsel and the court at a hearing on her motion to reconsider the sentence where defendant’s counsel began his argument thusly: “I know the court was scrupulous in considering the factors in aggravation and mitigation, but we’re asking the court to reweigh those factors; and we respectfully submit that

2019Streit, 142 Ill. 2d at 19 . ¶ 20 Defendant also contends the trial court failed to weigh the societal issues of mass incarceration and the financial burden of imprisonment on the community.

2016Coleman, 166 Ill. 2d at 262 (holding that it is improper for a reviewing court to reweigh the factors involved in a circuit court’s sentencing decision); People v. Streit, 142 Ill. 2d 13, 19 (1991) (holding that a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court). ¶ 57 The circumstances of this case are undoubtedly tragic, and there are clearly no winners.

2025People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (1st) 131503, ¶ 48 (reviewing court may not reverse sentence “just because it would have weighed the factors differently”).

2024See Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 53 (when “considering the propriety of a sentence, the reviewing court must proceed with great caution and must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court merely because it would have weighed the factors differently”).

2022See, e.g., Daly, 2014 IL App (4th) 140624, ¶ 26 (reviewing court recognizes that trial judge has the “opportunity to assess a defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age”; accordingly, reviewing court affords due deference to a sentencing judgment). ¶ 20 We further conclude that the trial judge’s determination, after considering all of the foregoing, “that a sentence of probation would deprecate the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, and a sentence to [IDOC] is necessary to protect the public,” was not unreasonable and therefo

2021According to defendant’s brief, “In raising these errors, [defendant] does not ask this Court to reweigh the factors. [Citation.] [Defendant] asks this court to find there was insufficient evidence in the record as to these factors to support the court’s findings on each factor, and therefore its transfer order.” ¶ 47 “Where a juvenile judge considers evidence on the statutory factors and any other relevant evidence, the resulting decision is a product of sound, judicial discretion and will not be disturbed on review.” People v. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d 404, 429 , 758 N.E.2d 813, 828 (2001).

2021According to defendant’s brief, “In raising these errors, [defendant] does not ask this Court to reweigh the factors. [Citation.] [Defendant] asks this court to find there was insufficient evidence in the record as to these factors to support the court’s findings on each factor, and therefore its transfer order.” ¶ 47 “Where a juvenile judge considers evidence on the statutory factors and any other relevant evidence, the resulting decision is a product of sound, judicial discretion and will not be disturbed on review.” People v. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d 404, 429 , 758 N.E.2d 813, 828 (2001).

2016Coleman, 166 Ill. 2d at 262 (holding that it is improper for a reviewing court to reweigh the factors involved in a circuit court’s sentencing decision); People v. Streit, 142 Ill. 2d 13, 19 (1991) (holding that a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court). ¶ 57 The circumstances of this case are undoubtedly tragic, and there are clearly no winners.

2005It is not the function of this court to reweigh those factors and independently conclude that the sentence is excessive (People v. Burke, 164 Ill.

2005It is not the function of this court to reweigh those factors and independently conclude that the sentence is excessive ( People v. Burke, 164 Ill.App.3d 889, 902 , 115 Ill.Dec. 847 , 518 N.E.2d 372 (1987)), or to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court ( People v. Pittman, 93 Ill.2d 169, 178 , 66 Ill.Dec. 275 , 442 N.E.2d 836 (1982)).

2005It is not the function of this court to reweigh those factors and independently conclude that the sentence is excessive ( People v. Burke, 164 Ill.App.3d 889, 902 , 115 Ill.Dec. 847 , 518 N.E.2d 372 (1987)), or to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court ( People v. Pittman, 93 Ill.2d 169, 178 , 66 Ill.Dec. 275 , 442 N.E.2d 836 (1982)).

2005It is not the function of this court to reweigh those factors and independently conclude that the sentence is excessive ( People v. Burke, 164 Ill.App.3d 889, 902 , 115 Ill.Dec. 847 , 518 N.E.2d 372 (1987)), or to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court ( People v. Pittman, 93 Ill.2d 169, 178 , 66 Ill.Dec. 275 , 442 N.E.2d 836 (1982)).