evidence at the sentencing hearing in Illinois

2026Plain error exists at sentencing when a clear error occurs, and “the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010).

2026“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 a fair sentencing hearing.” Id.

2026If error is shown, “[i]n the sentencing context, a defendant must then show that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 (citing People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2000)).

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 a fair sentencing hearing.” Id. (citing People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2000)).

2026The circuit court is granted such discretion in sentencing because “the trial court is in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence at the sentencing hearing.” People v. Ramos, 353 Ill.

2023People v. Snyder, 2011 IL 111382, ¶ 36 , 959 N.E.2d 656 . “[T]he trial court is in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence at the sentencing hearing.” People v. Ramos, 353 Ill.

2024People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 27 To demonstrate plain error in the sentencing context, a defendant must show that an error occurred and either (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.

2023People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 39 In the sentencing context, a defendant must show that an error occurred and either (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.

2014“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 a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . “[S]entencing issues are excepted from the doctrine of waiver when they affect a defendant’s substantial rights.” People v. Carmichael, 343 Ill.

2014"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 a fair sentencing hearing." Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . "[S]entencing issues are excepted from the doctrine of waiver when they affect a defendant's substantial rights." People v. Carmichael, 343 Ill.

2022People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 209 (2000).

2021People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 209 (2000).

2015See Patterson, 2014 IL 115102, ¶ 106 .

2015See Patterson, 2014 IL 115102, ¶ 106 .

2022“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 a fair sentencing hearing.” Id.

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.

2024“Sentencing errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewable as plain error if (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant or (2) the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Solis, 2019 IL App (4th) 170084 , ¶ 29 (citing People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 41 ). “ ‘Under both prongs of the plain- error doctrine, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (

2024“Sentencing errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewable as plain error if (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant or (2) the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Solis, 2019 IL App (4th) 170084 , ¶ 29 (citing People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 41 ). “ ‘Under both prongs of the plain- error doctrine, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (

2020Acknowledging this for- feiture, defendant nonetheless claims that this court can review the trial court’s alleged error un- der the first prong of the plain-error doctrine because “the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced.” We emphatically disagree. -3- ¶ 17 In People v. Hanson, 2014 IL App (4th) 130330, ¶¶ 15-16 , 25 N.E.3d 1 , this court wrote the following regarding the forfeiture rule as it applies to sentencing issues: “Section 5-4.5-50(d) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50(d) (West 2012)) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ‘A

2017See also People v. Hanson, 2014 IL App (4th) 130330, ¶¶ 27-29 , 25 N.E.3d 1 . ¶ 70 Defendant asserts that plain-error review is appropriate in this case because the evidence at the sentencing hearing was “closely balanced.” We disagree, noting that the trial court sentenced defendant as a Class X offender because of his extensive record of convictions of serious offenses.

2026People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 448 (2005). ¶ 32 Defendant here argues that the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, invoking the first prong of the plain error doctrine.

2022People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 448 (2005).

2026People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 212 (2010).

2020Consequently, we may review defendant’s claims of error only if he establishes plain error, that is, defendant bears the burden of showing that a clear or obvious error occurred and that either “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Id. at 545 . ¶ 114 “The trial 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).

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

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

2022People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008). 9 ¶ 31 The defendant does not argue that the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced but argues that the circuit court’s consideration of a factor inherent in the offense as an aggravating factor at sentencing is reviewable under the second prong of the plain error doctrine because it affects the defendant’s fundamental right to liberty.

2020People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 602 (2008) (“Absent reversible error, there can be no plain error.”).

2021Under either prong, defendant has the burden of persuasion. ¶ 122 “In determining whether the trial court based the sentence on proper aggravating and mitigating factors, a court of review should consider the record as a whole, rather than focusing on a few words or statements by the trial court.” People v. Dowding, 388 Ill.

2020Under either prong, defendant has the burden of persuasion. ¶ 122 “In determining whether the trial court based the sentence on proper aggravating and mitigating factors, a court of review should consider the record as a whole, rather than focusing on a few words or statements by the trial court.” People v. Dowding, 388 Ill.

2020People v. Rathbone, 345 Ill.

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.

2004People v. Jones , 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1995); People v. Beals , 162 Ill. 2d 497, 511 (1994); People v. Cox , 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980).

2004People v. Jones, 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1995); People v. Beals, 162 Ill. 2d 497, 511 (1994); People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980).

2004People v. Jones , 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1995); People v. Beals , 162 Ill. 2d 497, 511 (1994); People v. Cox , 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980).

2004People v. Jones, 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1995); People v. Beals, 162 Ill. 2d 497, 511 (1994); People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980).

2004People v. Jones , 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1995); People v. Beals , 162 Ill. 2d 497, 511 (1994); People v. Cox , 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980).

2004People v. Jones, 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1995); People v. Beals, 162 Ill. 2d 497, 511 (1994); People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980).

2026“Without reversible error, there can be no plain error.” Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 , ¶ 88.

2026“Without reversible error, there can be no plain error.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 88 .

2020People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 271-72 , 497 N.E.2d 1138, 1144 (1986).

2020People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 271-72 , 497 N.E.2d 1138, 1144 (1986).

2018"To obtain relief under the plain-error rule, a defendant must first show 'a clear or obvious error.' " People v. Johnson , 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 , ¶ 42, 414 Ill.Dec. 381 , 80 N.E.3d 114 (quoting People v. Hillier , 237 Ill. 2d 539 , 545, 342 Ill.Dec. 1 , 931 N.E.2d 1184 (2010) ). " 'In *253 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 a fair sentencing hearing.' " Id. (quoting Hillier , 237 Ill. 2d at 545 , 342 Ill.Dec. 1 , 931 N.E.2d 1184 ).

2018"To obtain relief under the plain-error rule, a defendant must first show 'a clear or obvious error.' " People v. Johnson , 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 , ¶ 42, 414 Ill.Dec. 381 , 80 N.E.3d 114 (quoting People v. Hillier , 237 Ill. 2d 539 , 545, 342 Ill.Dec. 1 , 931 N.E.2d 1184 (2010) ). " 'In *253 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 a fair sentencing hearing.' " Id. (quoting Hillier , 237 Ill. 2d at 545 , 342 Ill.Dec. 1 , 931 N.E.2d 1184 ).