defendant a fair sentencing hearing in Illinois

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.

2026However, under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may address a forfeited claim of sentencing error when a “clear or obvious error” occurred and “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced [(first-prong plain error)], or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing [(second-prong plain error)].” Id. at 545 .

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)).

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.

2025See Synowiecki, 2023 IL App (4th) 220834, ¶¶ 76-77 (finding a restitution award made with no actual basis in the evidence denies a defendant a fair sentencing hearing concerning the award); Hibbler, 2019 IL App (4th) 160897, ¶ 81 (remanding the case “for the limited purpose of compliance with the requirements of the Unified Code regarding restitution” after the trial court “fail[ed] to indicate if the restitution was to be paid in a lump sum or installments”).

2024“To obtain relief under this rule, a defendant must first show that a clear or obvious error occurred.” Synowiecki, 2023 IL App (4th) 220834, ¶ 70 . “ ‘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.’ ” Synowiecki, 2023 IL App (4th) 220834, ¶ 70 (quoting Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 , 931 N.E.2d at 1187 ).

2023A sentencing error is reviewable under the second prong of the plain error doctrine if it is “so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . “[O]nly an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding ‘unfair.’ ” People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 , ¶ 51.

2020See Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241, ¶ 51 (a violation of a sentencing statute by the trial court was a trial error that did not deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing and therefore did not constitute a structural error).

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. Bell, 196 Ill. 2d 343, 350 (2001); People v. Jordan, 103 Ill. 2d 192, 205-06 (1984).

2021When a defendant’s offenses are part of a related course of conduct “an extended-term sentence may be imposed only on those offenses within the most serious class.” People v. Bell, 196 Ill. 2d 343, 355 (2001).

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.

2019To obtain relief in the sentencing context under the plain error doctrine, a defendant must, first, establish that a clear or obvious error occurred and “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 ; see also People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 41 . ¶ 26 Under either prong, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.

2019See also People v. Scott , 2015 IL App (4th) 130222 , ¶ 41, 389 Ill.Dec. 231 , 25 N.E.3d 1257 . ¶ 26 Under either prong, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.

2007People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2000); People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 215, 251 (1997).

2007People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 18 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000); People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 251 , 227 Ill.Dec. 410 , 687 N.E.2d 892 (1997).

2026See id.

2026This court may review unpreserved sentencing issues for plain error where a clear or obvious error occurred and “(i) the evidence at sentencing was closely balanced or (ii) the error was so egregious that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 43 . -9- No. 1-24-0185 ¶ 35 Defendant bears the burden of persuading this court to excuse his forfeiture.

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 .

2025See People v. Hussain, 2024 IL App (1st) 230471, ¶ 24 . ¶ 50 The plain-error rule allows this court to review unpreserved sentencing issues when a clear or obvious error occurred and (1) “the evidence at sentencing was closely balanced” or (2) “the error was so egregious that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hussain, 2024 IL App (1st) 230471, ¶ 24 .

2025See People v. Hussain, 2024 IL App (1st) 230471, ¶ 24 . ¶ 50 The plain-error rule allows this court to review unpreserved sentencing issues when a clear or obvious error occurred and (1) “the evidence at sentencing was closely balanced” or (2) “the error was so egregious that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hussain, 2024 IL App (1st) 230471, ¶ 24 .

2023Under the second prong of plain-error review, “ ‘[p]rejudice to the defendant is presumed because of the importance of the right involved.’ ” Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 564-65 .

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.

2022To obtain sentencing relief under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine in the sentencing context, a defendant must show a clear or obvious error and that “the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . ¶ 51 Section 5-8-2(a) of the Uniform Code of Corrections (Code) provides in relevant part: - 15 - 2022 IL App (2d) 190733 “A judge shall not sentence an offender to a term of imprisonment in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by Article 4.5 of Chapter V for an offense or offenses within the class of the most serious of

2022“To obtain sentencing relief under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine in the sentencing context, a defendant must show a clear or obvious error and that ‘the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.’ ” Russell, 2022 IL App (2d) 190733, ¶ 50 (quoting People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010)).

2025See Synowiecki, 2023 IL App (4th) 220834, ¶¶ 76-77 (finding a restitution award made with no actual basis in the evidence denies a defendant a fair sentencing hearing concerning the award); Hibbler, 2019 IL App (4th) 160897, ¶ 81 (remanding the case “for the limited purpose of compliance with the requirements of the Unified Code regarding restitution” after the trial court “fail[ed] to indicate if the restitution was to be paid in a lump sum or installments”).