fair sentencing hearing in Illinois

2025“In the sentencing context, a defendant must then show either that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” Id. ¶ 37 On appeal, defendant does not argue plain error.

2025“In the sentencing context, a defendant must then show either that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” Id.

2024If there was clear or obvious error, the defendant must then show either “(1) the evidence was closely balanced or (2) the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Ahlers, 402 Ill.

2023Defendant contends the court lacked authority to impose an extended-term sentence because, at the time of his guilty plea, the court advised him he would be subject to a sentencing range of one to three years’ imprisonment and did not advise him that he could receive an extended-term sentence. ¶ 29 Defendant acknowledges he has forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in the trial court but argues we should consider his claim under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine. “ ‘[S]entencing errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewable as plain error if (1) the evidence was

2018Under this rule, a defendant must show first that a clear or obvious error occurred (People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)) and second that either the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced or the error was so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2000)). ¶ 26 Not every error in sentencing affects a fundamental right to liberty (People v. Rathbone, 345 Ill.

2013We do not find that the court’s passing reference to the harm inflicted upon Matthews put the judicial system in disrepute (see People v. Hampton, 149 Ill. 2d 71, 102 , 594 N.E.2d 291, 305 (1992)) or deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (see People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 , 743 N.E.2d 126, 136 (2000)).

2014See also People v. Simms, 143 Ill. 2d 154, 170 (1991) (plain error in jury instructions was sufficiently grave to have deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing). ¶ 62 As stated, "the first step is to determine whether error occurred." Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 .

2014See also People v. Simms, 143 Ill. 2d 154, 170 (1991) (plain error in jury instructions was sufficiently grave to have deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing). ¶ 62 As stated, "the first step is to determine whether error occurred." Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 .

2023Under the plain-error doctrine, this court may recognize and review clear errors in two scenarios: “(1) when the evidence is closely balanced or (2) when an error is so fundamental a defendant may have been denied a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Hausman, 287 Ill.

2023A fair sentencing hearing necessarily requires “a trial judge who knows the minimum and maximum sentences for the offense.” Hausman, 287 Ill.

2005App. 3d 1069, 1071 , 679 N.E.2d 867, 869 (1997) (plain-error rule applies when the error is so fundamental a defendant may have been denied a fair sentencing hearing); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 177 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 474 (2005) (purpose of plain-error doctrine is to protect the rights of the defendant).

2005App. 3d 1069, 1071 , 679 N.E.2d 867, 869 (1997) (plain-error rule applies when the error is so fundamental a defendant may have been denied a fair sentencing hearing); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 177 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 474 (2005) (purpose of plain-error doctrine is to protect the rights of the defendant).

2024People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 215, 251 (1997).

2023However, he argues that we may review it under the plain-error doctrine, which allows us to consider forfeited sentencing errors where “the evidence is closely balanced or the error is so fundamental it may have deprived [the] defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Smith, 2016 IL App (1st) 140496, ¶ 5 (citing People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 215, 251 (1997)).

2021As noted above, under the second prong of the doctrine, we may consider a forfeited - 13 - claim when “a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 . ¶ 45 In response, the State concedes both that (1) the trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay the amount of restitution imposed without any evidentiary basis for it and (2) defendant was denied a fair sentencing hearing because of the error.

2018Under this rule, a defendant must show first that a clear or obvious error occurred (People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)) and second that either the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced or the error was so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2000)). ¶ 26 Not every error in sentencing affects a fundamental right to liberty (People v. Rathbone, 345 Ill.

2021Plain-error review is appropriate because imposing the fine without any evidentiary support in contravention of the statute implicates the right to a fair sentencing hearing. [Citation.] The integrity of the judicial process is also affected when a decision is not based on applicable standards and evidence, but appears to be arbitrary.” Id. at 48 .

2021The court reasoned that “ ‘[p]lain-error review is appropriate because imposing [restitution] without any evidentiary support in contravention of the statute implicates the right to a fair sentencing hearing’ ” and “ ‘[t]he integrity of the judicial process is also affected when a decision is not based on applicable standards and evidence, but appears arbitrary.’ ” Id. ¶ 52 (quoting People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 48 , 912 N.E.2d 1220, 1230 (2009)).

2023App. 3d 1098, 1102 (1992)). ¶ 58 Similarly, in People v. Beals, 162 Ill. 2d 497 (1994), the defendant argued that after his conviction of first-degree murder, he was deprived of a fair sentencing hearing when the trial court improperly relied on the victim’s death as an aggravating factor when the victim’s death was inherent in the offense of murder.

2020In this case, defendant failed to demonstrate “that the error was so egregious as to deny [him] a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Ware, 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 36 ; see People v. Beals, 162 Ill. 2d 497, 510 (1994) (resentencing not required where the record established that the trial court placed insignificant weight on the improperly considered aggravating factor); People v. Whitney, 297 Ill.

1996The court has also held that the statute does not place on the defendant the risk of nonpersuasion at the sentencing hearing (People v. Fields, 135 Ill. 2d 18, 76 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill. 2d 364, 390 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23, 49 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing (People v. Tenner, 157 Ill. 2d 341, 382 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill. 2d 232, 282-83 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 468-69 (1983); People v. Williams, 97 Ill.

1996Dec. 200 , 552 N.E.2d 791 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill.2d 364, 390 , 118 Ill.Dec. 1 , 521 N.E.2d 69 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill.2d 23, 49 , 79 Ill.Dec. 625 , 464 N.E.2d 223 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing ( People v. Tenner, 157 Ill.2d 341, 382 , 193 Ill.Dec. 105 , 626 N.E.2d 138 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill.2d 232, 282-83 , 185 Ill.Dec. 475 , 614 N.E.2d 1160 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill.2d 439, 468-69 , 75 Ill.Dec. 241 , 457 N.E.2d 31 (1

2013We do not find that the court’s passing reference to the harm inflicted upon Matthews put the judicial system in disrepute (see People v. Hampton, 149 Ill. 2d 71, 102 , 594 N.E.2d 291, 305 (1992)) or deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (see People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 , 743 N.E.2d 126, 136 (2000)).

2013We do not find that the court’s passing reference to the harm inflicted upon Matthews put the judicial system in disrepute (see People v. Hampton, 149 Ill. 2d 71, 102 , 594 N.E.2d 291, 305 (1992)) or deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (see People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 , 743 N.E.2d 126, 136 (2000)).

2023This dual use of a single factor is often referred to as a “double enhancement.” People v. Gonzalez, 151 Ill. 2d 79, 84 (1992); see also People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (2004) (“a factor implicit in the offense for which the defendant has been convicted cannot be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing for that offense”). ¶ 35 The rule against double enhancements is “premised on the assumption that the legislature considered the factors inherent in the offense in determining the appropriate range of penalties for that offense.” People v. Rissley, 165 Ill. 2d 364, 390 (1995).

1998People v. Rissley, 165 Ill. 2d 364, 394 (1995); People v. Szabo, 94 Ill. 2d 327, 355 (1983).

1998People v. Rissley , 165 Ill. 2d 364, 394 (1995); People v. Szabo , 94 Ill. 2d 327, 355 (1983).

1998People v. Rissley, 165 Ill. 2d 364, 394 (1995); People v. Szabo, 94 Ill. 2d 327, 355 (1983).

2018Under this rule, a defendant must show first that a clear or obvious error occurred (People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)) and second that either the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced or the error was so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2000)). ¶ 26 Not every error in sentencing affects a fundamental right to liberty (People v. Rathbone, 345 Ill.

2018A reviewing court will not review a forfeited sentencing issue, such as restitution, unless the error is sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing or it affected the defendant's substantial rights. *1163 *241 People v. Hanson , 2014 IL App (4th) 130330 , ¶ 40, 388 Ill.Dec. 718 , 25 N.E.3d 1 . "[I]t is not a sufficient argument for plain error review to simply state that because sentencing affects the defendant's fundamental right to liberty, any error committed at that stage is reviewable as plain error." People v. Rathbone , 345 Ill.

2007Consequently, we find no plain error”); People v. Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d 467, 514 (1998) (“the prosecutor’s brief comments about the victim were not so inflammatory as to deny defendant a fair sentencing hearing”); People v. McCann, 348 Ill.

2007Consequently, we find no plain error"); People v. Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d 467, 514 (1998) ("the prosecutor's brief comments about the victim were not so inflammatory as to deny defendant a fair sentencing hearing"); People v. McCann, 348 Ill.

2012See People v. Richardson, 196 Ill.2d 225 , 256 Ill.Dec. 267 , 751 N.E.2d 1104 (2001). ¶ 39 The record reflects that no due process violation occurred and that the defendant received a fair sentencing hearing.

2012See People v. Richardson, 196 Ill.2d 225 , 256 Ill.Dec. 267 , 751 N.E.2d 1104 (2001). ¶ 39 The record reflects that no due process violation occurred and that the defendant received a fair sentencing hearing.

1996The court has also held that the statute does not place on the defendant the risk of nonpersuasion at the sentencing hearing (People v. Fields, 135 Ill. 2d 18, 76 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill. 2d 364, 390 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23, 49 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing (People v. Tenner, 157 Ill. 2d 341, 382 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill. 2d 232, 282-83 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 468-69 (1983); People v. Williams, 97 Ill.

1996Dec. 200 , 552 N.E.2d 791 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill.2d 364, 390 , 118 Ill.Dec. 1 , 521 N.E.2d 69 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill.2d 23, 49 , 79 Ill.Dec. 625 , 464 N.E.2d 223 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing ( People v. Tenner, 157 Ill.2d 341, 382 , 193 Ill.Dec. 105 , 626 N.E.2d 138 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill.2d 232, 282-83 , 185 Ill.Dec. 475 , 614 N.E.2d 1160 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill.2d 439, 468-69 , 75 Ill.Dec. 241 , 457 N.E.2d 31 (1

1998“It is axiomatic that parties in closing argument may not go beyond the scope of the evidence presented and facts fairly inferable therefrom [citation], misstate the law [citation], or express their personal opinions on the evidence [citation], or on defendant’s guilt [citation].” People v. Williams, 161 Ill. 2d 1, 78 (1994).

1998"It is axiomatic that parties in closing argument may not go beyond the scope of the evidence presented and facts fairly inferable therefrom [citation], misstate the law [citation], or express their personal opinions on the evidence [citation], or on defendant's guilt [citation]." People v. Williams, 161 Ill.2d 1, 78 , 204 Ill.Dec. 72 , 641 N.E.2d 296 (1994).

2021Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.” ¶ 55 To establish plain error, a defendant must first show that a clear or obvious error occurred (Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 ) and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error (Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d at 593 ) or that the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing (People v. Hanson, 2014 IL App (4th) 13

2020Under the plain-error doctrine, sentencing errors may be considered for the first time on appeal “if (1) the evidence was closely balanced or (2) the error -5- was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Hanson, 2014 IL App (4th) 130330, ¶ 26 .

2010He concludes this was plain error because it deprived him of both a substantial right and a fair sentencing hearing, citing People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (2002), and People v. Ramey, 151 Ill. 2d 498 (1992).

2010He concludes this was plain error because it deprived him of both a substantial right and a fair sentencing hearing, citing People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (2002), and People v. Ramey, 151 Ill. 2d 498 (1992).

2014People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005) (plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved errors that are so serious that they challenge the integrity of the judicial process); People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99 (2000).

2014People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005) (plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved errors that are so serious that they challenge the integrity of the judicial process); People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99 (2000).

1996The court has also held that the statute does not place on the defendant the risk of nonpersuasion at the sentencing hearing (People v. Fields, 135 Ill. 2d 18, 76 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill. 2d 364, 390 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23, 49 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing (People v. Tenner, 157 Ill. 2d 341, 382 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill. 2d 232, 282-83 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 468-69 (1983); People v. Williams, 97 Ill.

1996Dec. 200 , 552 N.E.2d 791 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill.2d 364, 390 , 118 Ill.Dec. 1 , 521 N.E.2d 69 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill.2d 23, 49 , 79 Ill.Dec. 625 , 464 N.E.2d 223 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing ( People v. Tenner, 157 Ill.2d 341, 382 , 193 Ill.Dec. 105 , 626 N.E.2d 138 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill.2d 232, 282-83 , 185 Ill.Dec. 475 , 614 N.E.2d 1160 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill.2d 439, 468-69 , 75 Ill.Dec. 241 , 457 N.E.2d 31 (1

2001See People v. Holman, 103 Ill.2d 133, 170 , 82 Ill.Dec. 585 , 469 N.E.2d 119 (1984). *403 After reviewing the entire closing argument, we conclude that these improper remarks by the State were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair sentencing hearing, or were so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process and necessitates the vacatur of defendant's death sentence.

2001See People v. Holman, 103 Ill.2d 133, 170 , 82 Ill.Dec. 585 , 469 N.E.2d 119 (1984). *403 After reviewing the entire closing argument, we conclude that these improper remarks by the State were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair sentencing hearing, or were so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process and necessitates the vacatur of defendant's death sentence.

1996The court has also held that the statute does not place on the defendant the risk of nonpersuasion at the sentencing hearing (People v. Fields, 135 Ill. 2d 18, 76 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill. 2d 364, 390 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23, 49 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing (People v. Tenner, 157 Ill. 2d 341, 382 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill. 2d 232, 282-83 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 468-69 (1983); People v. Williams, 97 Ill.

1996Dec. 200 , 552 N.E.2d 791 (1990); People v. Orange, 121 Ill.2d 364, 390 , 118 Ill.Dec. 1 , 521 N.E.2d 69 (1988); People v. Caballero, 102 Ill.2d 23, 49 , 79 Ill.Dec. 625 , 464 N.E.2d 223 (1984)), and thus a defendant is not denied a fair sentencing hearing when the prosecution is permitted to present rebuttal argument at the second stage of the hearing ( People v. Tenner, 157 Ill.2d 341, 382 , 193 Ill.Dec. 105 , 626 N.E.2d 138 (1993); People v. Page, 155 Ill.2d 232, 282-83 , 185 Ill.Dec. 475 , 614 N.E.2d 1160 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill.2d 439, 468-69 , 75 Ill.Dec. 241 , 457 N.E.2d 31 (1