People v. Kurowski

2021 IL App (3d) 190793-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 23, 2021
• Docket: 3-19-0793
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2021 IL App (3d) 190793-U

Order filed August 23, 2021 ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, ) Peoria County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-19-0793 v. ) Circuit No. 16-CF-583 ) MATTHEW A. KUROWSKI, ) Honorable ) Katherine S. Gorman, John P. Vespa, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judges, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McDade and Justice O’Brien concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced defendant to a term of 18 years’ imprisonment following defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of home invasion.

¶2 Defendant, Matthew A. Kurowski, pled guilty to the offense of home invasion and was

sentenced to a term of 18 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues the circuit court

imposed an excessive sentence by failing to consider all the statutory factors in mitigation and

other important mitigating considerations. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On August 23, 2016, the State charged defendant by indictment with home invasion (720

ILCS 5/19-6(a)(2) (West 2016)) and residential burglary (id. § 19-3(a)). On May 18, 2017,

defendant pled guilty to home invasion in exchange for a dismissal of the residential burglary

charge. The plea agreement did not include an agreed sentence.

¶5 In conjunction with defendant’s guilty plea, the State’s factual basis provided that if the

case proceeded to trial, the victim would testify that on or about August 3, 2015, the victim was

at her home in Bartonville. When the victim answered her front door, she was sprayed in the face

with pepper spray, pulled back into the living room, and pinned to the ground. Eventually, the

person who assaulted her helped her to the bathroom and allowed her to rinse her face with

water. Next, the victim heard someone say, “Let’s go,” and the victim saw between four and six

individuals running out the front door of the residence.

¶6 A subsequent investigation led to defendant’s confession. Defendant told law

enforcement officers he attended the organized attack on the victim’s home because defendant’s

drug dealer accused the victim’s son of stealing a safe from the drug dealer. The drug dealer

offered a $2000 cash reward for returning the stolen safe. In response, defendant and several

others traced the stolen safe to the victim’s home. Defendant admitted that after arriving at the

victim’s home, for the purpose of retrieving the stolen safe and other items, the victim was

pepper sprayed. 1 Defendant forced the victim into the living room and applied downward

pressure to her neck.

1 At sentencing, defendant admitted to personally pepper spraying the victim. 2 ¶7 According to defendant’s statement, during the home invasion, the group stole two

ounces of “dabs,” a gas mask to consume cannabis, several pieces of cannabis paraphernalia, and

the door to the previously stolen safe. Afterward, the group consumed the “dabs.”

¶8 Defendant’s presentence investigation report (report) revealed that defendant was 19

years old at the time of the offense. Defendant’s criminal history included two petty traffic

violations, one ordinance violation, and one misdemeanor theft charge, for which defendant

received court supervision. The report indicated that defendant had a “rough childhood” and that

defendant alleged parental neglect and/or physical abuse.

¶9 The report revealed defendant obtained a high school diploma, received average grades,

and was suspended from school two or three times for skipping classes. Defendant reported that

he joined the United States Marine Corps in 2014 but was discharged soon thereafter due to

medical and mental health issues. The report documented that defendant held his first and only

job at an Applebee’s for approximately one month in 2016.

¶ 10 Defendant reported that he first smoked cannabis in June 2016. During that time period,

defendant smoked cannabis one to two times every two weeks. Defendant could not recall if he

was high at the time of the offense. Defendant reported that he had been diagnosed with bipolar

disorder at age 12 and had taken various medications throughout his life. Defendant reported

having suicidal thoughts around the age of 14. Defendant also reported that he regretted

committing the instant offense and stated that he could not slow his mind to think before acting.

¶ 11 Lastly, the report indicated that two codefendants who were also charged with home

invasion received 10 years and 12 years of incarceration, respectively. The two additional

codefendants had not yet received sentences at the time the report was filed.

3 ¶ 12 The circuit court conducted a sentencing hearing on August 18, 2017. The victim read her

victim impact statement in open court and recounted being forced to her knees in her own living

room. The victim recalled looking up to see one of her assailants holding a large wrench and

thinking she would be beaten to death. The victim felt like she was in a horror movie. The victim

sustained physical wounds, including swelling and bruising, and psychological wounds

including, but not limited to, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and paranoia. The victim

missed one month of work and can no longer stay in her home for long periods of time without

experiencing fear. The victim hoped to overcome the side effects of the trauma and regain her

old way of life through counseling and family support.

¶ 13 Defendant gave a statement of allocution to the court. Defendant advised the court that he

regretted using cannabis, instead of his prescribed medications, to treat his mental health issues

at the time of the offense. Defendant explained that his drug dealer would not allow defendant to

make further cannabis-related purchases until defendant recovered the stolen property and

offered defendant a $2000 reward. According to defendant, he did not receive the reward.

Defendant was apologetic and contrite throughout his statement in allocution.

¶ 14 Before announcing the sentence, the circuit court stated on the record that the court

considered the information contained in the report, together with the information contained in the

supplement, and any medical documents and/or reports submitted to the court. The circuit court

also considered the evidence presented, the victim impact statement, the arguments of counsel,

the financial impact of incarceration, the statements on defendant’s behalf, and defendant’s

statement of allocution. The court reflected on the history and character of defendant,

defendant’s education and job history, defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and the

circumstances and nature of the offense. As a factor in mitigation, the court specifically found

4 that defendant had led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time prior to the commission

of the present crime. When addressing the factors in aggravation, the court found that

defendant’s conduct fell “just short” of causing or threatening serious harm but that the court

would consider defendant’s actions of pepper spraying the victim, forcing her to the floor, and

holding her down. The court also found the evidence fell “just short” of establishing that

defendant received compensation for the crime. The court found that incarceration was necessary

to deter others from committing the same crime. Noting the severity of the crime of home

invasion, the court sentenced defendant to 18 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 15 On August 29, 2017, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which included, but

was not limited to, a challenge to his sentence as excessive. The parties addressed defendant’s

motion to reconsider sentence before the court on August 31, 2017. The court denied defendant’s

motion to reconsider sentence and defendant appealed.

¶ 16 On March 18, 2019, this court remanded defendant’s case to the circuit court for further

postplea proceedings, based on counsel’s failure to file a Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certificate. 2

Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Jul. 1, 2017). On remand, this court ordered the filing of a Rule 604(d)

certificate, a new postplea motion, and a de novo hearing on the postplea motion. 3 In accordance

with the order, defense counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate and a motion to withdraw guilty

plea and vacate judgment. Defendant’s motion, which argued defendant’s sentence was

2 People v. Kurowski, No. 3-17-0585 (Mar. 18, 2019) (remanded with instructions). 3 We note that because counsel’s filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate was a condition precedent to the filing of defendant’s August 29, 2017, motion to reconsider sentence, we treat the August 31, 2017, hearing on the motion as a nullity. See People v. Porter, 258 Ill. App. 3d 200 (1994). 5 excessive, was later determined by the parties to stand as a motion to reconsider sentence, rather

than a motion to withdraw guilty plea and vacate judgment. 4

¶ 17 On December 27, 2019, defendant’s “motion to reconsider sentence” was heard by a

judge other than the judge who sentenced defendant. The court recalled the procedural posture of

the case, including defendant’s plea, the factual basis, and the sentencing hearing. The court

stated that the sentencing judge properly considered the relevant factors and stated:

“after considering the PSI, the evidence that [the sentencing judge] heard at the

sentencing [hearing] by both the State and [defendant] and his statement of allocution,

[the court] sentenced [defendant] to a sentence that was in the middle of the range of 6 to

30 years. So I’m going to deny [defense counsel’s] request [to reconsider sentence] for

the reasons stated.”

On December 31, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 18 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 19 Defendant contends on appeal that the 18-year sentence he received was excessive

because the sentencing court failed to consider all the applicable statutory factors in mitigation

and failed to properly weigh other important mitigating information. The State argues

defendant’s sentence should be affirmed where the circuit court properly considered the requisite

sentencing factors.

4 The December 27, 2019, hearing transcript indicates that defense counsel erroneously believed the filing of a motion to withdraw guilty plea and vacate the judgment was necessary before defendant could challenge his sentence as excessive. Counsel’s mistake was based on the belief that defendant entered into a negotiated guilty plea. However, Rule 604(d) provides “a negotiated plea of guilty is one in which the prosecution has bound itself to recommend a specific sentence, or a specific range of sentence, or where the prosecution has made concessions relating to the sentence to be imposed and not merely to the charge or charges then pending.” Because the parties here did not enter into an agreement regarding defendant’s sentence or a sentencing range, we consider defendant’s guilty plea non-negotiated. Thus, the filing of a motion to withdraw was not a necessary prerequisite to defendant’s challenge to his sentence. 6 ¶ 20 It is well established that “A reviewing court gives great deference to the trial court’s

judgment regarding sentencing because the trial judge, having observed the defendant and the

proceedings, has a far better opportunity to consider these factors than the reviewing court,

which must rely on the ‘cold’ record.” People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 212-13 (2010)

(quoting People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 53 (1999)). For this reason, a reviewing court’s power to

reduce a sentence under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(4) should be exercised cautiously.

Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 212; Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(b)(4). Sentences imposed by the circuit court may

not be altered on review absent an abuse of discretion. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 212; People v.

Patterson, 2017 IL App (3d) 150062, ¶ 31. Where a sentence is within the statutory limits, it will

not be deemed excessive and the result of an abuse of discretion unless the sentence is “greatly at

variance with the spirit and purpose of the law, or [is] manifestly disproportionate to the nature

of the offense. People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 210 (2000).

¶ 21 Home invasion under section 19-6(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 2012 is a Class X

felony, which carries a statutory sentencing range of not less than 6 years and not more than 30

years. 720 ILCS 5/19-6(a)(2) (West 2016); see 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2016). Although

not required to do so, before imposing the 18-year sentence for home invasion, the circuit court

carefully noted its consideration of the statutory mitigating factors and spoke about several of the

relevant factors at length. See People v. Smith, 321 Ill. App. 3d 523, 537 (2001). Importantly, the

court stressed the severity of defendant’s crime. We are mindful that the most important

sentencing factor is the seriousness of the offense, and the “court need not give greater weight to

rehabilitation or mitigating factors than to the severity of the offense.” People v. Charles, 2018

IL App (1st) 153625, ¶ 45.

7 ¶ 22 In this case, the court focused on the severity of the offense and the impact this crime had

upon the victim. Ultimately, the record establishes that the circuit court, among other things,

considered and weighed the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. This

court will not grant defendant’s request to substitute its judgment for the circuit court’s judgment

where the appropriate factors could have been weighed differently. See Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at

213. Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s sentence.

¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 24 The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.

¶ 25 Affirmed.