People v. Young

2020 IL App (4th) 180315-U

Opinion

NOTICE 2020 IL App (4th) 180315-U This order was filed under Supreme FILED Court Rule 23 and may not be cited NO. 4-18-0315 September 21, 2020 as precedent by any party except in Carla Bender th the limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4 District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) McLean County TAMARUS ALVIN YOUNG, ) No. 15CF1225 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Paul G. Lawrence, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when resentencing defendant to four years’ imprisonment for domestic battery.

¶2 In January 2016, defendant, Tamarus Alvin Young, pleaded guilty to domestic

battery, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 months’ probation. The court later revoked

defendant’s probation and resentenced him to four years in prison.

¶3 Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it

resentenced him to four years’ imprisonment rather than returning him to probation. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 On October 28, 2015, a grand jury indicted defendant with two counts of

domestic battery, with prior aggravated and domestic battery convictions, alleging physical

contact of an insulting or provoking nature (counts I and II) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West

2014)).

¶6 On January 7, 2016, defendant entered a fully negotiated plea of guilty to count I

in exchange for a sentence of 30 months’ probation and the State dismissing count II. During the

plea hearing, the State presented its factual basis, asserting if the matter proceeded to trial, it

would present evidence showing defendant made unwanted contact with Markia Goldman, his

adult niece, by pushing her and causing her to fall to the ground. After finding the factual basis

sufficient, the trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea.

¶7 On April 14, 2016, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation,

alleging defendant violated his probation by committing aggravated battery in McLean County

case No. 16-CF-395. Following a bench trial in June 2016, the trial court found defendant not

guilty and the allegations in the State’s petition to revoke probation unproven.

¶8 On January 18, 2017, the State filed a second petition to revoke defendant’s

probation, alleging defendant violated his probation after he was charged with domestic battery

in McLean County case No. 17-CF-43.

¶9 On August 24, 2017, defendant admitted violating his probation and pleaded

guilty to domestic battery in McLean County case No. 17-CF-43. In October 2017, the trial court

resentenced defendant to 30 months’ drug court probation.

¶ 10 On January 17, 2018, the State filed a third petition to revoke defendant’s

probation, alleging defendant violated his probation, after he (1) “tested positive for alcohol on

January 13, 2018,” and (2) “failed to complete sanctioned 10 hours community service.” On

-2- February 15, 2018, defendant appeared in court and admitted the allegations in the State’s

petition.

¶ 11 On April 3, 2018, the matter proceeded to a resentencing hearing. The trial court

noted it received a presentence investigation report (PSI) filed on March 28, 2018. The PSI

indicated defendant was 40 years old and contained the following information regarding

defendant’s criminal history and conduct while on probation:

“[Defendant’s] criminal history consists of: seven (7) felony offenses, two

(2) Aggravated DUI felony offenses, one (1) DUI offense, nine (9) misdemeanor

offenses, two (2) traffic offenses, and one (1) juvenile adjudication.

[Defendant] continues to struggle with alcohol issues as evidence[d] by his

positive drug screens for alcohol and signed admission of use forms while on

Probation and enrolled in substance abuse treatment. He has had the vast majority

of urine screens negative for illicit drug use. The Defendant has been sanctioned

eleven (11) times since being placed on Drug Court in October 2017. [Defendant]

has been unemployed and has had unstable residence while on Probation.”

¶ 12 In aggravation, the State called several witnesses, including Matthew Searby, a

drug court coordinator employed by the McLean County adult probation office. Searby stated he

maintained weekly contact with defendant while defendant was on drug court probation. Searby

testified “[defendant] had a violation or more each week, excluding one week in December” and

elaborated those violations “mainly consisted of alcohol use, or missed drug screens, or missed

meetings.” On cross-examination, Searby indicated it was not unusual for people at the

beginning of the drug court program to have “dirty drops.” However, Searby was unable to say

whether weekly violations were considered common.

-3- ¶ 13 Defendant presented no evidence in mitigation. However, defendant exercised his

right to make a statement in allocution and accepted responsibility for the sanctions he received

while on probation. In addition, defendant requested further drug court probation, stating, “Yes, I

made a mistake. Give me a chance, don’t just give up on me. Give me the proper help that I do

need. Send me to Chestnut.”

¶ 14 The State requested five years’ imprisonment, arguing defendant’s criminal

history showed he was a violent person and not suited for drug court probation. Defense counsel

requested defendant be sent back to drug court probation and argued the State’s

“hyper-technical” allegations were attempts to “wash him out of the program.”

¶ 15 Ultimately, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and resentenced him to

two concurrent four-year prison terms in McLean County case Nos. 15-CF-1225 and 17-CF-43.

Before pronouncing sentence, the court stated it considered the (1) PSI, (2) witness testimony,

(3) defendant’s statement in allocution, and (4) statutory factors in mitigation and aggravation. In

mitigation, the court noted defendant’s “very difficult upbringing, [and] family life.” The court

also considered the effects of defendant’s imprisonment on his children, defendant’s history of

drug and alcohol abuse, and recognized defendant showed appropriate remorse. The court

identified defendant’s age, poor job history, and criminal history as factors in aggravation. The

court noted defendant previously served three prison sentences for aggravated and domestic

battery-related charges and failed to comply with the requirements of a previous term of

intensive probation, eventually resulting in revocation. The court also noted “[defendant] never

did complete the domestic violence treatment that was ordered in this 15-CF-1225 case” and

stated defendant’s failure to show up and participate in the program indicated “a bigger problem

other than the dirty drops.”

-4- ¶ 16 On April 4, 2018, defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, arguing the

sentence was excessive based on the evidence presented to the trial court and the court’s

revocation of his drug court probation was a denial of fundamental fairness. At a hearing on

April 30, 2018, the court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider.

¶ 17 This appeal followed.

¶ 18 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 19 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it

resentenced him to four years’ imprisonment instead of returning him to drug court probation.

Defendant requests we vacate his sentence and remand the cause for a new resentencing hearing.

The State responds, asserting defendant’s case is moot as defendant completed his term of

imprisonment, making it impossible for him to now be sentenced to treatment as an alternative to

prison.

¶ 20 A. Mootness

¶ 21 Defendant contends, citing People v. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d 286, 769 N.E.2d 21

(2002), the issue relating to his sentence is not moot because this court could grant him effectual

relief, as he is still serving his MSR term and the vacatur of his sentence followed by a proper

resentencing hearing could result in a sentence of drug court probation.

¶ 22 As a general rule, Illinois courts will not consider moot issues. In re Christopher

K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 359, 841 N.E.2d 945, 952 (2005). “An issue on appeal becomes moot where

events occurring after the filing of the appeal render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant

effectual relief to the complaining party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 358-59.

¶ 23 In Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d at 292-93, the defendant requested the supreme court to

vacate his extended-term sentence as it was imposed in violation of the requirements set out in

-5- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The supreme court first considered whether the

issue was moot as the defendant had been released from prison. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d at 294. The

court found, because the defendant was still serving an MSR term, the vacatur of the extended-

term sentence would affect how long the defendant could be reimprisoned for a violation of

MSR. Id. (citing 730 ILCS 5/3-3-9(a)(3)(i)(B) (West 1996)). Therefore, the supreme court found

the issue was not moot. Id.

¶ 24 It is undisputed defendant has been released from prison and is serving his MSR

term. The website for the Department of Corrections indicates defendant served one year of his

concurrent four-year sentences due to reductions for good conduct and sentence credit. See

Young, Tamarus, Illinois Department of Corrections: Offender Search,

https://www.illinois.gov/IDOC/Offender/Pages/InmateSearch.aspx (search “IDOC#”; enter

“B62406”) (last visited Aug. 25, 2020). Defendant was discharged from his prison sentence on

April 11, 2019, and has since been serving his MSR term with an April 11, 2023, discharge date.

Because the vacatur of defendant’s sentence followed by a new resentencing hearing free from

the alleged error could result in a reduced sentence, drug court probation, we find the issue

relating to his sentence is not moot.

¶ 25 B. Sentencing Decision

¶ 26 The trial court has discretion when sentencing, and we will not reverse the court’s

decision absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Snyder, 2011 IL 111382, ¶ 36, 959 N.E.2d

656. The 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. App. 3d 133, 137, 817 N.E.2d 1110, 1115 (2004). The trial

court errs where the sentence is “greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law, or

-6- manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.” People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 210,

737 N.E.2d 626, 629 (2000). We presume the sentencing court considered all relevant factors in

aggravation and mitigation unless the record affirmatively reveals otherwise. People v.

Chirchirillo, 393 Ill. App. 3d 916, 927, 913 N.E.2d 635, 645 (2009). When determining what

constitutes an appropriate sentence, the court considers “a defendant’s history, character, and

rehabilitative potential, along with the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect society, and

the need for deterrence and punishment.” People v. Hernandez, 319 Ill. App. 3d 520, 529, 745

N.E.2d 673, 681 (2001).

¶ 27 Domestic battery is a Class 4 felony, which carries a non-extended term

sentencing range of one to three years in prison and an extended sentencing range of three to six

years in prison. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2), (b) (West 2014) (classifying domestic battery as a

Class 4 felony if the defendant has any prior convictions for aggravated or domestic battery); 730

ILCS 5/5-4.5-45(a), 5-5-3.2(a) (West 2014). Defendant’s prior felony convictions made him

eligible for extended-term sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered

(1) defendant’s PSI, (2) the testimony presented at the sentencing hearing, (3) defendant’s

statement in allocution, and (4) the statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation. When facing

sentencing, defendant had convictions for “seven (7) felony offenses, two (2) Aggravated DUI

felony offenses, one (1) DUI offense, nine (9) misdemeanor offenses, two (2) traffic offenses,

and one (1) juvenile adjudication.” The court noted defendant previously served three prison

sentences for aggravated and domestic battery-related charges and failed to comply with the

requirements of a previous term of intensive probation, eventually resulting in revocation.

Although the court originally sentenced defendant to 30 months’ drug court probation, defendant

violated his probation on two separate occasions. Given his criminal history, the court expressed

-7- concern regarding the likelihood defendant would comply with another period of probation.

Ultimately, the court resentenced defendant to an extended term of four years in prison.

Defendant’s four-year sentence fell within statutory limits, and nothing in the record indicates

the court considered improper factors in sentencing defendant.

¶ 28 Finally, defendant possessed no right to another sentence to drug court. Drug

court merely constituted an option available to the trial court. Here, the court properly considered

the relevant factors and reached a decision supported by the record. Thus, we conclude the court

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.

¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 31 Affirmed.

-8-