People v. Pearson

2021 IL App (4th) 190159-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: January 29, 2021
• Docket: 4-19-0159
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2021 IL App (4th) 190159-U This Order was filed under NO. 4-19-0159 FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is January 29, 2021 not precedent except in the IN THE APPELLATE COURT Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Champaign County JAKI G. PEARSON, ) No. 17CF1211 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Thomas J. Difanis, ) Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the sentence imposed against defendant was neither excessive nor an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion.

¶2 Defendant, Jaki G. Pearson, appeals from his 25-year prison sentence for

aggravated battery with a firearm, arguing the sentence imposed against him is excessive and an

abuse of the circuit court’s discretion given his guilty plea, remorse, minor criminal history, and

outpouring of support from his family. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 A. Information

¶5 In September 2017, the State charged defendant by information with three counts

of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2016)) (counts I through III) for

discharging a firearm which proximately caused the death of Brandon Smith. Later, the State charged defendant by information with one count of aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS

5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2016)) (count IV) for discharging a firearm which caused injury to Brandon

Smith.

¶6 B. Guilty Plea

¶7 In October 2018, the parties indicated they reached a plea agreement. As part of the

agreement, defendant would plead guilty to count IV in exchange for the State moving to dismiss

counts I through III. The circuit court admonished defendant as to the charge in count IV and the

possible penalties. Defendant indicated he understood. The court admonished defendant as to the

rights he was giving up if he pleaded guilty. Defendant indicated he understood. The court

questioned defendant if his decision to plead guilty was voluntary. Defendant indicated it was. The

court questioned defendant if he was forced or threatened to plead guilty. Defendant indicated he

was not. The court questioned defendant if he was promised anything outside the plea agreement

in exchange for pleading guilty. Defendant indicated he was not. The State provided the following

factual basis in support of the plea:

“The case arises out of events from September 1st of 2017,

around 12:40 in the morning.

Prior to that in the area of 1206 Providence Circle No. 110

this [d]efendant had been hanging out with the victim, Brandon

Smith, as well as family and friend members and they were joined

by three other young men, Tavontae Hurd, Malik Hurd and Robert

Turner. The five, [d]efendant, [the] victim[,] and those three

witnesses, were in and around a vehicle parked in that parking lot

-2- smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol. The [d]efendant who was

in possession of a semiautomatic pistol was, according to the

witnesses, tweaking, their words, and at some point raised the gun

towards the vehicle. This essentially broke up the party.

The victim and then [d]efendant having apparently calmed

down began to walk back towards Apartment 110. The three

witnesses reported that some sort of verbal dispute re-arose between

the two of them. They heard a shot, turned around and realized that

the victim, Mr. Smith, had been shot. They then fled from the

[d]efendant two or three blocks away where they located police who

were already in the area on an unrelated matter. They and the police

returned to the scene and located Brandon who was rendered—

rendered emergency aid.

The [d]efendant had fled north from the location. His firearm

was located about half a block away in the grass the next day. This

[d]efendant was not himself located until September 10th when he

with counsel turned himself into authorities.”

The defense agreed the State had witnesses who would testify substantially as indicated. Defendant

persisted in pleading guilty to count IV. The court accepted the guilty plea.

¶8 C. Sentencing

¶9 In January 2019, the circuit court held a sentencing hearing. The court received a

presentence investigation report (PSI) for its consideration. In aggravation, the State presented

-3- victim impact statements, photographs of the crime scene, and photographs taken from defendant’s

Facebook profile which appeared to show him with firearms. The State also presented testimony

from Brandon Smith’s older sisters, Marquisha and Mariah Smith, as well as the lead detective

investigating Brandon Smith’s death, Andre Davis. In mitigation, the defense presented letters

offered on behalf of defendant, a certificate of completion from Lincoln’s Challenge Academy,

and videos and photographs taken from Brandon Smith’s cell phone which appeared to show him

with firearms. The defense also presented testimony from defendant’s mother, Denease Williams,

and defendant’s uncle, Ossie Coleman. We note the record on appeal does not contain the victim

impact statements, and it contains only one of the letters offered on behalf of defendant. The

following is gleaned from the PSI and the evidence presented.

¶ 10 Shortly before the shooting of Brandon Smith, video surveillance showed

defendant and two females arriving at a nearby convenience store in a vehicle. The video showed

defendant going inside the store and purchasing a bottle of liquor and the two women staying

inside the vehicle and playing with a firearm. The women later reported defendant had left the

firearm in their possession and they took photographs of themselves brandishing the firearm. The

women also reported they returned the firearm to defendant after he returned to the vehicle, and

they then went to the apartment complex where the shooting occurred. Prior to the shooting,

Brandon Smith reported to others that defendant had been arguing with him about cannabis which

defendant thought was stolen from him. Witnesses observed defendant discharge his firearm at

Brandon Smith and then turn and discharge the firearm towards the three other men who were

nearby. Seven nine-millimeter casings were discovered at the scene, all of which came from the

same firearm that discharged the bullet which struck Brandon Smith and led to his death.

-4- ¶ 11 Marquisha Smith testified she first met defendant approximately a month before

the shooting at her sister’s apartment. When they first met, defendant was carrying a firearm on

his hip, which was readily apparent. At one point, defendant had the firearm in his hand while he

was sitting at a table. This caused Marquisha to become uncomfortable and leave.

¶ 12 Mariah Smith testified she had known defendant for several years and they were

friends on Facebook. Mariah identified several photographs she obtained from defendant’s

Facebook profile, which appeared to show him holding firearms. Mariah acknowledged she was

not aware when the photographs were taken or if the firearms were real.

¶ 13 Denease Williams testified her son was intelligent, caring, and a leader, and he had

many people who cared for him. Williams testified defendant was picked on because of his size

and she encouraged him to defend himself. Williams also testified defendant expressed remorse

for his actions.

¶ 14 Ossie Coleman testified his nephew was a “good natured person.” When asked if

defendant’s actions were out of character, Coleman testified, “Yes, in a way, but it was probably

pressure.”

¶ 15 Defendant’s grandmother submitted a letter on defendant’s behalf. Defendant’s

grandmother wrote defendant was a “good boy” who was “always mannerable and respectable to

people, all ages.” She further wrote defendant was “taught to pray and think about Jesus.”

¶ 16 At the time of sentencing, defendant was 22 years old, stood 5 feet 6 inches,

weighed 120 pounds, and had no children. He had a history of delinquency and criminal activity.

His history of delinquency involved a battery for which he was sentenced to 12 months’ probation.

His history of criminal activity involved a felony aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) for

-5- which he was sentenced to 18 months’ probation. Defendant also had two traffic violations.

Defendant attended high school through the tenth grade. He aspired to earn his General

Equivalency Diploma and attend college. Prior to being incarcerated in this case, defendant

reported having a history of employment at various restaurants and stores. Defendant reported

being in good physical health and not suffering from any physical or mental disabilities or illnesses.

Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol since the age of 18 and to smoking cannabis since the age

of 16. He drank alcohol on weekends and smoked cannabis daily. Defendant admitted to being

under the influence of alcohol and cannabis at the time of the shooting. Defendant did not believe

his alcohol and cannabis use was problematic. Defendant reported successfully completing a

residential drug treatment program in 2013.

¶ 17 With respect to recommendations, the State recommended defendant be sentenced

to 25 years’ imprisonment. In support, the State highlighted the nature and circumstances of the

offense—that defendant, a convicted felon, chose to unlawfully carry a firearm and do so while

consuming alcohol and cannabis and then discharge the firearm at least seven times in a residential

area and at other individuals, which resulted in one of the bullets striking and killing Brandon

Smith. The State acknowledged defendant had suggested prior to pleading guilty that he

discharged the firearm in self-defense. The State argued, however, there was no evidence to

support such a claim. The State also argued the recommended sentence would serve to deter others

from (1) obtaining a firearm if they are felons, (2) carrying a firearm if they are consuming alcohol

and drugs, and (3) threatening others and discharging a firearm multiple times in a residential area.

In rendering its recommendation, the State acknowledged defendant had a group of supporters

who cared for him, a minimal criminal history, and degree of remorse.

-6- ¶ 18 The defense recommended defendant be sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

In support, the defense highlighted defendant had taken responsibility by pleading guilty and was

remorseful for his actions. The defense also highlighted defendant’s age and minor criminal

history. The defense asserted alcohol and drugs contributed to defendant’s criminal behavior. The

defense maintained defendant was an intelligent, good person who had the potential to turn his life

around.

¶ 19 Defendant gave the following statement in allocution:

“I want to start off by apologizing, saying sorry to Brandon’s

family. I didn’t hate Brandon. I didn’t have any problems with

Brandon. I do know his sister. And I never wanted none of this to

happen. I just did what I—you know, the night this happened, I was

under the influence but that didn’t play a part in why I acted the way

I acted. I thought we were all good. We were, you know, just

hanging out. I don’t know where the pot came from, but I was

threatened, and also I tried to get away from the situation. I got—I

jumped out the car and I was threatened and I did what I—you know,

I thought people were going for guns. I just did what I had to do. I

was scared. But at the end of the day I didn’t want any of those

events to happen that night to happen.

I have learned from this. Everybody make mistakes. I’m not

a bad person. You know, I have to live. Regardless of if I’m in jail

or free, I still have to live on and live my life, but I am sorry for what

-7- happened that night. I mean I really—I really don’t know what to

say. I don’t—I just want his family to know that I’m sorry, and I

mean that’s really about it.”

¶ 20 After hearing the evidence and recommendations and comments from the parties,

the circuit court issued the following oral pronouncement of its decision:

“The court has considered the [PSI]. I’ve considered the

testimony presented by the State. I’ve considered the testimony

presented on behalf of the defendant. I’ve considered the comments

of counsel, as well as the comments of the defendant.

I’ve considered the statutory factors in aggravation as well

as the statutory factors in mitigation. The two statutory factors in

aggravation, the defendant does have the prior criminal history. He

has the aggravated DUI, and he does have an adjudication in 2013

for battery. Then of course the other statutory factor in aggravation

is the deterrent factor.

Mitigation, there is mitigation in this record. He’s only [22]

years of age. He has successfully completed Lincoln’s Challenge.

He has [pleaded] guilty. He has been able to manage to be employed,

and he hasn’t brought any children into this world that he’s not

prepared to help raise and/or support. So there is—and the fact that

he has one aggravated DUI as his record, that’s close to being—not

having a criminal history. So those are the factors that the court has

-8- considered.

This court over and over and over again finds itself

sentencing young men to literally the rest of their lives in prison

because they’ve killed another young man, and this case is no

different than all of the others. And [the State] and [the defense]

have talked about the deterrent factor. The deterrent factor doesn’t

rest with the courts, it doesn’t rest with law enforcement; it rests

with everyone in this courtroom, everyone in this courtroom who

knows that young men, both Mr. Pearson and Mr. Smith, are running

around carrying firearms. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve

sentenced young men in cases like this, and does the deterrent factor

make a difference? From this point of view, no. There is nothing the

courts can do, there is nothing that the law enforcement community

can do, no counselors out there, no psychiatrists, no teacher, it’s up

to everyone in this courtroom, every family member who knows

there is a young man out there walking around with a firearm to do

something about it. Otherwise we’re going to be condemned to these

hearings over and over and over again.

What happened in this case is an incredible tragedy. It’s a

tragedy for the family of the victim. It’s a tragedy for Mr. Pearson

and his family. From the letters submitted on behalf of both Mr.

Pearson and the victim in this case, they were both loved young men.

-9- Their families love them. They thought well of them. Mr. Pearson

wasn’t raised to be a criminal. He got drunk, he got high that night.

He had the benefit of treatment back in 2013. He was actually in

residential treatment. Then he was convicted of the [aggravated]

DUI. He was ordered to get an evaluation and to deal with the

problem that alcohol and whatever other substance might be

plaguing him. But nonetheless on the night in question, he was

probably drunk, he was high, and he was armed with a firearm, and

he killed somebody.

I believe that from everything that has been presented at this

point, [the State’s] recommendation I believe is appropriate. It will

be for a period of [25] years in the Illinois Department of

Corrections.”

¶ 21 D. Motion to Reconsider the Sentence

¶ 22 In February 2019, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, arguing his

sentence was excessive given the circuit court’s failure to adequately consider his history,

character, rehabilitative potential, social environment, age, minimal criminal history, remorse, and

mitigating motivation for committing the offense. Following a March 2019 hearing, the court

denied defendant’s motion.

¶ 23 This appeal followed.

¶ 24 II. ANALYSIS

- 10 - ¶ 25 On appeal, defendant argues the sentence imposed against him is excessive and an

abuse of the circuit court’s discretion given his guilty plea, remorse, minor criminal history, and

outpouring of support from his family. The State disagrees.

¶ 26 As part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of

aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2016)) in exchange for the

State moving to dismiss three counts of first degree murder. Aggravated battery with a firearm is

a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(h) (West 2016)), which carries a sentencing range of 6 to

30 years’ imprisonment (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2016)). The circuit court sentenced

defendant in accordance with the State’s recommendation to 25 years’ imprisonment, a sentence

which clearly falls within the applicable sentencing range.

¶ 27 A sentence that falls within the applicable sentencing range is generally reviewed

for an abuse of discretion. People v. Price, 2011 IL App (4th) 100311, ¶ 36, 958 N.E.2d 341. This

is because a circuit court is usually “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.”

Id. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) A sentence that falls withing the applicable sentencing

range “will not be deemed excessive and an abuse of the court’s discretion unless it is ‘greatly at

variance with the spirit and purpose of the law or manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the

offense.’ ” People v. Pina, 2019 IL App (4th) 170614, ¶ 20, 143 N.E.3d 794 (quoting People v.

Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 54, 723 N.E.2d 207, 210 (1999)).

¶ 28 Here, there is no dispute the circuit court considered defendant’s guilty plea,

remorse, minor criminal history, and outpouring of support from his family in reaching its

sentencing decision. Rather, defendant argues the court failed to accord the appropriate weight to

- 11 - these facts. The court, however, had to balance these facts against the nature and circumstances of

the offense—that defendant, a convicted felon, chose to unlawfully carry a firearm and do so while

consuming alcohol and cannabis and then discharge the firearm at least seven times in a residential

area and at other individuals, which resulted in one of the bullets striking and killing Brandon

Smith. The court also had to balance these facts against the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the

circuit court was in a far better position than this court to weight and balance the facts before it

and determine an appropriate sentence. After our review of the facts presented at the sentencing

hearing, we find the sentence imposed against defendant was neither excessive nor an abuse of the

circuit court’s discretion.

¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30 We affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 31 Affirmed.

- 12 -