NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 220346-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is May 9, 2023 not precedent except in the NO. 4-22-0346 Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Peoria County MICHA ROY GORDON, ) No. 21CF533 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) John P. Vespa, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s 50-year prison sentence for first degree murder was not excessive.
¶2 In August 2021, a grand jury indicted defendant, Micha Roy Gordon, with two
counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2020)). After a January 2022
trial, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. At an April 13, 2022, hearing,
the Peoria County circuit court denied defendant’s posttrial motion and sentenced him to a single
prison term of 50 years. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the
court denied.
¶3 Defendant appeals, asserting his 50-year sentence was excessive because the trial
court failed to adequately consider his remorse and other mitigating evidence reflective of his
rehabilitative potential. We affirm. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 Count I of the August 31, 2021, indictment asserted defendant, without legal
justification, knowingly struck Rolando Westbrook with a knife knowing said act created a
strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Westbrook, causing Westbrook’s death. See
720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2020). Count II asserted defendant, without lawful justification and
with the intent to kill Westbrook, struck Westbrook with a knife, thereby causing Westbrook’s
death. See 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2020).
¶6 On January 18, 2022, the trial court commenced defendant’s jury trial. The State
presented the testimony of the following witnesses: (1) Jadakiss Pickett, an eyewitness;
(2) Roger Pickett, Jadakiss’s brother and Westbrook’s friend; (3) Juanasia Fuller, a friend of
Jadakiss and Roger; (4) Dr. Amanda Youmans, the forensic pathologist who performed
Westbrook’s autopsy; (5) William England, a Peoria police sergeant; (6) Jenna Long, a Peoria
police officer; (7) Zachary Jackson, a Peoria police officer; (8) Gerald Suelter, a Peoria police
officer; (9) Clint Rezac, a Peoria police detective; (10) Roberto Vasquez, a Peoria police
detective; (11) Scott Bowers, a Peoria police officer; (12) John Briggs, a Peoria police officer;
and (13) Clay Blum, a Peoria police officer. The State also presented numerous photographs and
surveillance videos.
¶7 Defendant testified on his own behalf and presented two stipulations. The first
stipulation was defendant received medical care on August 24, 2021, and medical personnel
observed a three-centimeter stab wound to his left arm, a skin tear to his left pinky, and “a small
healed cut to the right side of his head.” The second stipulation addressed Westbrook’s
convictions and noted he had two misdemeanor battery convictions in 2009 and one in 2020.
Westbrook also had two felony domestic battery convictions in 2010 and two misdemeanor
-2- domestic battery convictions in 2020. The evidence relevant to the issue on appeal follows.
¶8 Around 3 a.m. on August 24, 2021, Jadakiss, Roger, Fuller, Westbrook, and a
couple of other people were drinking and partying at Taft Homes in Peoria, Illinois. A separate
group of people were also partying and drinking nearby. One of the men in the other group was
wearing all white and had a dog with him. Roger identified defendant in the courtroom as the
man who was wearing all white that night.
¶9 At some point, Jadakiss and Fuller left to sit in a vehicle, and Roger was near that
vehicle. While they were there, Jadakiss and Fuller observed an altercation between Westbrook
and defendant. Jadakiss recorded some of the altercation with her cellphone camera. A man in a
red shirt was standing in between Westbrook and defendant preventing them from physically
touching. Neither woman saw physical contact between defendant and Westbrook, but Jadakiss
testified she saw defendant try to swing at Westbrook. Both Jadakiss and Fuller saw something
in defendant’s hand but could not identify what it was. Jadakiss denied telling the police it was a
boxcutter in defendant’s hand. Fuller testified Westbrook did not have a weapon. Jadakiss
testified she heard Westbrook say he did not want to fight. The last words Jadakiss heard
Westbrook say were “leave me alone.” After the altercation ended, Westbrook left and started
walking up the sidewalk that led out of Taft Homes. Defendant walked in the same direction as
Westbrook. Fuller testified defendant continued to walk behind Westbrook until he was out of
her eyesight.
¶ 10 Later, the group learned Westbrook had been killed, and Jadakiss, Roger, and
Fuller went to Jefferson Street. They observed Westbrook’s body lying in the street, and the
police were present. Jadakiss showed the police the video she had of a portion of the altercation
between defendant and Westbrook. Jadakiss tried to e-mail the video to the police, but she was
-3- unsuccessful. Jadakiss deleted the video from her cellphone, and the police were unable to
recover it.
¶ 11 Sergeant England testified he was dispatched to the 700 block of Jefferson Street
at 3:57 a.m. and was the first officer on the scene. When he arrived, Sergeant England observed
a man lying in a pool of blood in the street near Warren Danz’s law office. Sergeant England
determined the man was deceased. While on the scene, he spoke with Jadakiss, who had a video
on her cellphone. Both he and Officer Long watched the video, but they were unsuccessful in
obtaining it from Jadakiss. Sergeant England also searched the area of the scene for a weapon
and a blood trail but did not find either.
¶ 12 Officer Long testified she recognized the deceased man in the video played by
Jadakiss. The video showed two males fighting at Taft Homes and a third man trying to
“deescalate the situation.” Officer Long observed a shiny gray object in the hand of the man
wearing white and having a dog. The man in white also made a movement towards the victim.
Additionally, Officer Long testified Jadakiss told her the man in white had a knife or a box cutter
and that man followed the victim out of Taft Homes.
¶ 13 Detective Vasquez testified he examined Westbrook’s body at the scene with the
coroner and they found no weapons of any type on Westbrook’s body. He also had officers
gather surveillance videos from Taft Homes, Danz’s law office, and buildings between those two
locations. None of the surveillance videos recorded the actual stabbing. However, the State
played portions of the surveillance videos for the jury. One video showed Westbrook running
away from defendant as he left Taft Homes and crossed Adams Street. The video from Miracle
Revival Church showed defendant pursuing Westbrook, and the video from Warren Danz’s
office showed defendant and his dog cross Jefferson Street and walk away from the area.
-4- ¶ 14 Detective Vasquez also testified that, later in the day on August 24, 2021, the
police executed a search warrant of defendant’s residence. The police also transported defendant
to the hospital because he was injured. After defendant was treated, he went to the police station
where Detective Vasquez along with Detective Rezac interviewed him. During the interview,
defendant said he was having a few beers at Taft Homes by himself. As he was leaving, a man
he had never seen before came up to him and tried to rob him. Defendant continued his walk,
and the man ran up behind defendant and pushed him. When defendant turned around, the man
hit him, cut him, and stabbed him. Defendant got the man’s knife, and the man threatened to
shoot defendant. Defendant believed the man, who weighed 100 pounds more than him, was
going to kill him. When the man tackled defendant on Jefferson Street, he used the man’s knife
to defend himself.
¶ 15 Also, on August 24, 2021, Dr. Youmans conducted an autopsy of Westbrook. At
the time of his death, Westbrook was 37 years old, weighed 228 pounds, and was 5 feet, 8 inches
tall. Defendant had suffered numerous injuries. He had cuts on his hands, upper chest, and
thigh, and his cheek was bruised. Abrasions were located on his forehead, face, hands, side, and
left knee. Westbrook also had stab wounds on his lower back, face, neck, and upper chest. The
stab to Westbrook’s neck caused injury to Westbrook’s larynx, thyroid gland, and right jugular
vein, which caused substantial bleeding. Dr. Youmans opined the stab wound to the neck was
the fatal wound. She also testified the cuts and abrasions on Westbrook’s hands were consistent
with defensive-type wounds. Additionally, Dr. Youmans testified that, at the time of death,
Westbrook’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.204 and he had marijuana in his system.
¶ 16 Defendant testified he was 55 years old, weighed 166 pounds, and was 6 feet, 4
inches tall at the time of the incident. Defendant had walked to Taft Homes with his dog and
-5- drank three beers. He denied bringing a knife with him. While defendant sat with his dog,
Westbrook, whom defendant had never seen before, exchanged words about the dog, and
defendant moved further away from Westbrook. Another man gave defendant a fifth of tequila,
from which Westbrook took a drink without defendant’s permission. Defendant then let
Westbrook have the rest of the tequila and walked away from Westbrook. Defendant estimated
Westbrook drank three-fourths of the fifth of tequila.
¶ 17 As defendant began walking towards the entrance of Taft Homes, he heard the
tequila bottle “go down” and said, “[H]e cut his hand.” Westbrook jumped up with both of his
fists down and said the following: “You think I won’t put both of my hands on you and your dog
and make you break yourself and take everything you got.” Defendant continued to walk up the
sidewalk with his back to Westbrook. Defendant got pushed, and when he turned around,
Westbrook hit him. Westbrook hit defendant a second time and tackled him to the ground. The
pair then tussled on the ground. When defendant maneuvered Westbrook over, they both looked
around, and defendant noticed he was bleeding from his head and arm. Westbrook had stabbed
and cut defendant but lost the knife. Defendant got to his feet with Westbrook’s knife and tried
to make his way to the entrance. Westbrook did not know defendant had his knife and said the
following to defendant: “I’ll blow your mother f*** head off. You’re gonna give me what I
said. You gonna do this. You gonna kill me, you go ahead.” They again swung at each other.
As defendant made his way to the entrance of Taft Homes, Westbrook kept running up to him,
and they would swing at each other, which continued all the way to Danz’s office. Defendant
explained they were face to face because Westbrook was jogging backwards. Westbrook was
also making threatening statements and suggesting he had a gun. Defendant admitted that, when
he and Westbrook were near the church, they could have both gone in different directions but
-6- neither one wanted to do so.
¶ 18 At Danz’s office, they were swinging at each other when Westbrook charged
defendant taking them both to the ground. Westbrook swung at defendant and defendant swung
at Westbrook with Westbrook’s knife. When Westbrook finally retreated, defendant jumped to
his feet. Westbrook then walked away, and defendant left. Defendant did not know the extent of
Westbrook’s injuries. He did not call the police when he arrived home.
¶ 19 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree
murder. Defendant filed a posttrial motion. On April 13, 2022, the trial court held a joint
hearing on defendant’s posttrial motion and sentencing. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the
court denied defendant’s posttrial motion. As to sentencing, the State presented the presentence
investigation report (PSI) and the testimony of Detectives Robert Allen and John Rodgers.
Additionally, Amy Funches, Westbrook’s mother, read her victim impact statement to the court.
Defendant made a statement in allocution and presented the testimony of (1) Steven Johnson, his
uncle, and (2) Diane Knox-Fleming, his cousin. The court also reviewed the surveillance videos
from defendant’s trial.
¶ 20 Detective Allen testified he investigated an August 11, 2021, assault and battery
of Donovan Watson at Taft Homes. Watson was unconscious when the police arrived and was
transported to the hospital. At the hospital, Watson told Detective Allen he had been in an
altercation with defendant near a liquor store, and defendant chased him through Taft Homes.
There, defendant assaulted Watson and left him unconscious. Watson identified defendant as the
perpetrator in a photographic array. Detective Allen collected surveillance videos from Taft
Homes, which showed Watson falling to the ground. While Watson was on the ground
motionless, defendant stomped on Watson’s head twice. When Detective Allen interviewed
-7- defendant, he said Watson had inhaled nitrous containers and thrown bricks and a 2x4 at him.
Defendant also told Detective Allen that Watson had exposed himself to defendant and made
statements about having sexual intercourse with defendant. Defendant stated Watson’s conduct
upset him. Defendant felt Watson had not learned his lesson yet, so defendant was going to beat
his “a***.”
¶ 21 Detective Rodgers testified about an April 2021 incident. According to Detective
Rodgers, a gas station employee told the police a man came into the gas station and was trying to
return a knife. An argument ensued and the man said some racial slurs to the employee, who
then told the man to leave. The man continued to argue and called the employee out from behind
the counter. The employee came out from behind the counter, and the man pulled a gun. After
threatening the employee, the man shoved the employee, pointed the gun at him, and left the
store. The employee recognized the man by his face but did not know his name. The man was
wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses at the time of the incident. The police obtained a
surveillance video of the incident, and the police recognized defendant as the man who
threatened the employee. The employee also identified defendant as the man in a photographic
lineup. The State played surveillance videos of both incidents for the trial court.
¶ 22 Funches considered defendant a close family member and noted the violent
manner in which her son died. She noted how much pain losing Westbrook caused her family
and questioned why defendant had not shown any remorse.
¶ 23 Johnson testified he had frequent contact with defendant over the years and
described him as a strong family man. Johnson’s parents had 12 children, and those children had
many children. They were a big close-knit family that took care of each other. Defendant was
always there to help and protect his family members. Johnson was very shocked to hear what
-8- happened because it was not the person Johnson knew. Johnson’s family did not tolerate gun
violence. However, he admitted defendant was the type of person who would not back down or
run from something. Defendant would always defend himself.
¶ 24 Knox-Fleming had also been around defendant since his birth. Knox-Fleming
described defendant as a sensitive and caring member of the family and sought leniency from the
trial court. Additionally, she explained how proud and happy defendant had been to get a new
job three days before the incident. Like Johnson, Knox-Fleming noted defendant was not one to
walk away from a challenge and he was often challenged due to his big size.
¶ 25 Defendant made a statement in allocution. He acknowledged he knew
Westbrook’s mother and uncles but denied knowing Westbrook. Defendant again stated
Westbrook was the aggressor and he did not set out to do anything to anybody. He insisted he
was just trying to defend himself and tried to distance himself from Westbrook three times.
Defendant was sorry for what happened and sorry he and Westbrook crossed paths. Defendant
apologized to Westbrook’s family.
¶ 26 The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years’ imprisonment. The court noted
defendant received glowing testimonials and it believed defendant’s witnesses. However, it
believed something else was going on and found defendant had “a temper that just blows,” which
a person has to be able to rein in. The court noted defendant’s claim Westbrook was following
him was a lie. It further explained defendant had many opportunities to stop pursuing Westbrook
and continued to pursue him for two to three blocks. We note the written sentencing judgment
gave the statutory citation for knowing first degree murder, which was not the most serious form
of murder charged.
¶ 27 On April 14, 2022, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, arguing
-9- the trial court’s sentence was excessive and amounted to a de facto life sentence.. He argued the
court placed too much emphasis on the aggravating evidence of the other incident at Taft Homes
and the aggravating factors of defendant’s criminal history and the need to deter others from
committing the same crime. Defendant also asserted the court should not have considered the
evidence related to the April 2021 incident. Additionally, defendant alleged the court failed to
consider or give sufficient weight to the following:
“(i) Defendant’s statement of allocution, which included repeated apologies to the
victim’s family, (ii) letters and testimony about his character, (iii) work history,
(iv) family support, (v) the Defendant’s age, which makes the sentence a
near-certain life sentence, and (vi) all other arguments raised by Defendant and
his counsel on his behalf during his sentencing hearing.”
Defendant further alleged the court erred by finding his rehabilitative potential was poor. The
court held the hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence on April 18, 2022. After
hearing the parties’ arguments, the court denied the motion to reconsider. The court explained
that, even if it sentenced defendant to the minimum statutory sentence, it was still a life sentence
given defendant’s age. The court also stated the defense noted defendant apologized repeatedly.
However, the court noted the apologies were insufficiently specific. Additionally, the court
found defendant did not have good rehabilitative potential and noted defendant stomped on the
victim of the other Taft Homes incident after the victim had been lying on the ground.
¶ 28 On April 22, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in sufficient
compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Mar. 12, 2021). Accordingly, this court
has jurisdiction of defendant’s appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).
¶ 29 II. ANALYSIS
- 10 - ¶ 30 Defendant asks this court to reduce his sentence or, in the alternative, vacate his
sentence and remand the cause for a new sentencing hearing because his 50-year sentence for
first degree murder is excessive. The State disagrees and also asserts this court should not
consider the material outside the record that defendant cites on appeal.
¶ 31 The Illinois Constitution mandates “[a]ll penalties shall be determined both
according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to
useful citizenship.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11. In sentencing a defendant, the circuit court
must consider a number of statutory aggravating and mitigating factors. See 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1,
5-5- 3.2 (West 2020). However, “the seriousness of an offense is considered the most important
factor in determining a sentence.” People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 53, 23 N.E.3d
430.
¶ 32 With excessive sentence claims, this court has explained appellate review of a
defendant’s sentence 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 determination of a defendant’s sentence, and the trial court’s
decisions in regard to sentencing are entitled to great deference and weight.
[Citation.] Absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court, a sentence may not be
altered upon review. [Citation.] If the sentence imposed is within the statutory
- 11 - range, it will not be deemed excessive unless it is greatly at variance with the
spirit and purpose of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the
offense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Price, 2011 IL App (4th)
100311, ¶ 36, 958 N.E.2d 341; see also People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 212,
940 N.E.2d 1062, 1066 (2010).
The sentencing range for first degree murder is 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment (730 ILCS
5/5-4.5-20(a)(1) (West 2020)). Thus, defendant’s 50-year prison sentence was within the proper
statutory range.
¶ 33 A. Scholarly Articles Outside the Record
¶ 34 In support of his argument his sentence is excessive, defendant cites several
articles from various journals. Thus, we begin our analysis by addressing the State’s argument
we should disregard those articles in addressing defendant’s excessive sentence claim.
Defendant disagrees with the State, contending the refusal to consider such information stands in
opposition to several Illinois Supreme Court and other court decisions.
¶ 35 In this case, the trial court found defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation were
poor given he had three violent episodes within a year. In his appellant brief, defendant argues
the trial court failed to adequately consider the mitigating evidence reflective of defendant’s
rehabilitative potential. Defendant notes the PSI stated defendant was homeless but had a job
and was in the process of getting a new job. He then cites a law review article that such actions
are indicative of defendant’s rehabilitative potential. Defendant further argues the PSI shows
defendant had never been diagnosed with any mental health conditions and cites several articles
in support of his contention the proper treatment of anger management issues increases the
likelihood of rehabilitation and decreases the risk of reoffending.
- 12 - ¶ 36 The State notes the trial court never admitted the articles cited by defendant, the
articles were not provided by defendant in the appellate record, and they appear to be written by
advocacy groups. A review of defense counsel’s comments at sentencing indicates counsel
raised neither of the aforementioned arguments regarding rehabilitative potential in the trial court
but instead focused on defendant’s good character. As such, defendant is presenting evidence
via the articles not considered by the trial court but which is aimed at impeaching the trial court’s
factual determination regarding defendant’s rehabilitative potential. This court has found such
materials are not appropriate for our consideration and declined to give them any weight. In re
R.M., 2022 IL App (4th) 210426, ¶ 46, 198 N.E.3d 677.
¶ 37 The facts before us are distinguishable from People v. Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d
107, 816 N.E.2d 322 (2004), cited by defendant. There, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed
whether the sentencing provision as applied to the defendant violated the proportionate penalties
clause because it was “cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed
as to shock the moral sense of the community.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Huddleston,
212 Ill. 2d at 132, 816 N.E.2d at 337. In analyzing the issue, the supreme court cited numerous
articles. See Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d at 134-35, 816 N.E.2d at 338. However, in analyzing the
claim of a proportionate penalties clause violation, the supreme court gave no deference to the
trial court’s determination of that claim (Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d at 129, 816 N.E.2d at 335), and
the issue required the supreme court to examine the general consensus on matters related to sex
crimes against children. Moreover, our review of the appellate court cases from other districts
cited by defendant does not persuade us to depart from our decision in R.M.
¶ 38 Accordingly, we will disregard the articles cited by defendant and the arguments
based on those arguments that were not raised in the trial court.
- 13 - ¶ 39 B. Excessive Sentence
¶ 40 Defendant contends the trial court failed to (1) adequately account for (a) his
remorse and (b) the mitigating evidence indicative of his rehabilitative potential and
(2) appropriately balance rehabilitation and retribution with the objective of restoring defendant
to useful citizenship. The State contends defendant forfeited portions of his argument for failing
to raise them in the trial court.
¶ 41 Defendant contends he expressed deep remorse for killing Westbrook and the trial
court discounted that remorse because defendant did not admit he was guilty of first degree
murder. Defendant relies on the court’s comments at the hearing on the motion to reconsider his
sentence. We do not find his contention forfeited. When the court was discussing defendant’s
apologies at the hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence, the court stated it
understood why a defendant would not admit guilt in a statement of allocution and it was
defendant’s choice to make a general apology. The record contains no evidence the court
punished defendant for not admitting his guilt. The court was merely explaining it did not give
defendant’s apologies a great deal of weight because they were general. We disagree with
defendant’s contention the trial court failed to adequately consider defendant’s remorse and
punished him for not admitting his guilt.
¶ 42 Defendant next contends significant mitigating evidence of his rehabilitative
potential was presented at the sentencing hearing. As previously found herein, defendant’s
arguments related to his homelessness and lack of anger management treatment that were
supported by scholarly articles outside the record were forfeited. Defendant also argues the
evidence of his strong family ties is indicative of rehabilitative potential. In this case, the trial
court had to balance the evidence of defendant’s family ties and good character with that of
- 14 - defendant’s lengthy criminal history and his violent actions on more than one occasion.
Defendant’s argument essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence, which is not the role of this
court. Defendant’s first criminal conviction was in 1983, and the last conviction before the first
degree murder charge was in 2016. He had a total of 10 misdemeanors and 3 felonies. The PSI
does not reveal the underlying facts of those convictions, but we disagree with defendant that we
can infer none of the convictions were a crime of violence. Regardless, defendant’s criminal
history spanning several decades and committing numerous crimes does not support a claim he
had rehabilitative potential. Moreover, the State’s evidence of the two recent violent incidents
also cuts against rehabilitative potential. Accordingly, we disagree with defendant he had
significant rehabilitative potential. Additionally, we agree with the trial court any sentence it
gave defendant was essentially a life sentence given defendant’s age of 56. Thus, that fact alone
is not a basis for a lesser sentence. Given the violent nature of the crime and the fact video
evidence suggests the crime could have been easily avoided, we find the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing defendant to 50 years’ imprisonment.
¶ 43 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 44 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Peoria County circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 45 Affirmed.
- 15 -