Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

People v. Sandifer, 2017 IL App (1st) 142740

Appellate Court 

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

GREGORY SANDIFER, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. First District, Fourth Division 

Docket No. 1-14-2740

Filed December 14, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 11-CR-16380; the 

Hon. Clayton J. Crane, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed as modified.

Counsel on

Appeal

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Ann B. McLennan, of State 

Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, 

Mary P. Needham, and Hareena Meghani-Wakely, Assistant State’s 

Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Burke and Justice Gordon concurred in the judgment 

and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Gregory Sandifer was convicted of first degree murder 

of his three-year-old son, Jaivon, and attempted first degree murder, aggravated criminal 

sexual assault, and aggravated domestic battery of M.J., Jaivon’s mother. The trial court 

sentenced defendant to natural life in prison for the murder, a consecutive term of 25 years’ 

imprisonment for attempted murder, and concurrent prison terms of 18 years for sexual assault 

and 7 years for domestic battery. 

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to 

suppress his statements because his severe pain and pain medication administered to him at the 

time of his statements rendered him unable to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda

rights and make a voluntary statement. Defendant also contends, and the State agrees, that his 

conviction for aggravated domestic battery must be vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule 

because it is based on the same physical act as the attempted murder conviction. Finally, 

defendant argues that his life sentence is excessive because it fails to take into account his 

nonviolent criminal history. We vacate the aggravated domestic battery conviction and affirm 

defendant’s three remaining convictions and sentences in all other respects. 

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, 

aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated domestic battery, 

aggravated battery, and aggravated unlawful restraint. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to 

suppress statements he made to police and Assistant State’s Attorney (ASA) Karin Sullivan 

while in custody and undergoing treatment at West Suburban Medical Center. Defendant 

alleged that due to his medical, mental, and psychological state, he was incapable of 

understanding and appreciating his Miranda rights, and therefore, his statements were not 

voluntary or knowingly and intelligently made. He specifically noted that he had been given 

the pain medications morphine and Dilaudid. Defendant argued that his medical condition was 

so severe that it should have been obvious to the police and the ASA during their 

conversations. Defendant asserted that all of the statements he made were elicited in violation 

of his constitutional rights. 

¶ 4 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, the State called Armita Mabeza Butardo, a 

registered nurse at West Suburban Medical Center, who testified that on September 2, 2011, 

defendant was transferred to her unit from the emergency room for treatment of a comminuted 

fracture to his right ankle, which was broken into pieces. About 4:30 p.m., Butardo conducted 

an initial mental assessment to determine defendant’s levels of consciousness and pain. While 

in the emergency room, defendant had been given two doses of morphine, one at 12:16 p.m. 

and the second at 3:12 p.m. Butardo’s assessment lasted 30 to 45 minutes, and defendant 

answered her questions correctly. Butardo determined that defendant was oriented to time, 

place, and person. He was alert, calm, and showed no signs of confusion, and his vital signs 

were stable. 

¶ 5 Following the assessment, defendant indicated that his level of pain on a scale of 1 to 10 

was a 12. At 5:55 p.m., Butardo gave defendant a third dose of morphine. She monitored 

defendant for any adverse reactions, and after 20 minutes, defendant reported that his pain 

level had only decreased to a 10. Consequently, at 6:15 p.m., Butardo gave defendant a dose of 

Dilaudid. She remained with defendant until 7:30 p.m., and during that time, he ate his dinner, 
- 3 - 

was alert, oriented, and responsive, and showed no signs of confusion. Defendant did not have 

any adverse reactions to the medications. 

¶ 6 Butardo explained that both morphine and Dilaudid are opiates and narcotics that relieve 

pain by altering the brain’s perception of pain and reaction to it. The drugs may decrease a 

person’s respiratory and pulse rates, causing them to feel sleepy. Both medications become 

effective about five minutes after being administered, and their half-life is two hours, at which 

time they reduce their level in the blood to half of the initial volume. Dilaudid is the stronger of 

the two medications and reaches its peak in 20 to 30 minutes, allowing patients to feel better 

sooner as compared to the morphine. After defendant received the medications, he was not 

sleepy, his eyes were not closed, and he was responsive to Butardo’s questions.

¶ 7 That evening, some police officers asked Butardo if they could question defendant. She 

advised them that she had given him pain medication, and they then spoke with him. 

Afterwards, at 10 and 10:45 p.m., Butardo observed that defendant was alert and coherent. At 

10:45 p.m., defendant stated that he was still in pain, and Butardo gave him another dose of 

morphine, after which he remained alert and responsive. Butardo did not observe any change 

in defendant’s mental state after receiving any of the doses of medication. Defendant only 

complained about pain with his ankle and did not report any other pain. 

¶ 8 The State then called Chicago police officer Timothy Adams, who testified that he 

assumed guard duty over defendant while he was being treated in the emergency room at West 

Suburban Medical Center. Although defendant remained handcuffed, Adams denied 

interfering with any medical treatment. He also denied initiating any conversations with 

defendant about what had happened or why he was in custody. 

¶ 9 Between 1:15 and 2:05 p.m., while Adams and defendant were alone in the emergency 

room, defendant asked the officer several questions about what had happened that day. Adams 

replied that he did not know what happened and he was only there to keep watch over 

defendant. The officer did not ask defendant any questions. Defendant remained silent for 

awhile, then told Adams that he remembered getting into a fight with his girlfriend and getting 

a knife from the kitchen and stabbing her. Adams could not recall if defendant said that his 

girlfriend jumped out of the window or was pushed out. Defendant stated that after his 

girlfriend went out the window, he decided that he was going to kill himself, and he was going 

to take his son Jaivon with him. While lying in the hospital bed, defendant closed his eyes and 

made a stabbing motion as though he was reenacting the incident. Adams demonstrated that 

motion by holding his left hand up at waist level and moving his right hand back and forth with 

a clenched fist. Adams explained that as defendant made this motion, he smashed his 

handcuffs against the bedrail in a very forceful motion. Defendant then calmed down and said 

that he ran out of the apartment and the police took him into custody. Defendant’s statement to 

Adams lasted about 10 to 15 minutes. 

¶ 10 When Detective Thomas Kolman arrived at the hospital, Adams told him what defendant 

had said. Kolman then spoke with defendant with Adams present. Adams denied that 

defendant appeared confused or disoriented at any time during their interaction. Adams also 

explained that he did not memorialize defendant’s statement in a written report because he 

waited for Kolman to question defendant. If defendant had changed his story in any way, 

Adams would have written a report recounting the version defendant had told him. Adams 

acknowledged that he never advised defendant of his Miranda rights. 
- 4 - 

¶ 11 The State then called Detective Kolman, who testified that when he arrived at the hospital, 

Officer Adams told him that, while he was guarding defendant, defendant stated that he had 

stabbed Jaivon and M.J. Kolman spoke with the emergency room nurse to see if he could 

question defendant about what had occurred that day. Kolman explained that he wanted to 

know if defendant was medically able to answer questions, if he was medicated, or if he was 

going to be taken into surgery. About 2:50 p.m., Kolman spoke to defendant with Adams 

present. 

¶ 12 Kolman advised defendant of his Miranda rights, and defendant agreed to speak with him. 

Throughout their conversation, which lasted half an hour, defendant’s demeanor and mental 

status was fine. Defendant’s answers were responsive to the questions asked. He did not appear 

sleepy or confused, nor did he appear to have any trouble understanding the detective. 

¶ 13 Defendant told Kolman that he, M.J., and their son, Jaivon, went to Northeastern Illinois 

University to register M.J. for classes. When they returned to M.J.’s home, defendant and M.J. 

argued about babysitting duties. The argument escalated into a physical altercation, and 

defendant shoved M.J. into a front bedroom and ordered Jaivon to go to a rear bedroom. 

Defendant stated that he threw M.J. down onto the bed, climbed on top of her, and removed her 

clothing. Defendant then went to the kitchen, retrieved a knife, and returned to the bedroom 

where he engaged in sexual intercourse with M.J. Defendant stated that he stabbed M.J. once, 

and they struggled for control of the knife. M.J. gained control of the knife, then went to the 

living room and threw it out the window. M.J. attempted to leave, but defendant blocked her 

path and would not allow her to go. M.J. then went to the same window where she had thrown 

out the knife and tried to go out the window. Defendant either threw a television at her or 

shoved a television into her. M.J. then jumped out the window and landed on the concrete 

below. 

¶ 14 Defendant told Kolman that at some point, Jaivon entered the living room and witnessed a 

portion of the fight. Defendant retrieved a second knife intending to commit suicide and 

decided that he would take Jaivon with him. Defendant stabbed Jaivon with the knife in the 

foyer and dropped that knife. Defendant retrieved a third knife and exited the apartment 

through the back door onto a porch. After observing dogs in the yard, defendant jumped into 

the neighbor’s yard and injured his ankle. Defendant then walked into the alley, entered an 

open garage, and hid inside that garage until he was confronted by the owner. At that same 

moment, the overhead garage door opened, and the police took him into custody. During this 

interview, defendant never complained about any pain or his physical condition, nor did he 

ever state that he wanted to terminate the conversation. 

¶ 15 About 7:30 p.m., Kolman returned to the hospital with Detective John Fuller, and after 

meeting with ASA Sullivan, the three of them went to defendant’s room. Before entering, they 

spoke with nurse Butardo to see if defendant was still able to understand and answer their 

questions. About 7:56 p.m., they entered the room, and Sullivan advised defendant of his 

Miranda rights. Defendant appeared to be fine and agreed to speak with them. He was no 

longer wearing handcuffs. Defendant answered the questions in a conversational manner and 

did not appear to be sleepy or confused. His answers were responsive to their questions, and 

Kolman had no concerns about defendant’s mental status during this interview, which lasted 

35 to 40 minutes. 

¶ 16 Defendant retold his story of what had occurred, which was substantially the same as the 

statement he earlier gave to Kolman. Defendant added that he was angry about M.J. going out 
- 5 - 

with her friends, going to the gym, and leaving him to watch Jaivon. Defendant said that M.J. 

made fun of him and talked down to him, and he became “very, very angry with her.” M.J. also 

told defendant that he should take Jaivon to his house. Defendant said that was when he 

became angry and pushed M.J. into the bedroom. During this interview, defendant recalled 

stabbing M.J. several times. M.J. broke free from defendant and said that she would not call the 

police, but he did not believe her. Defendant said that he gave M.J. the knife hoping that she 

would stab him, but instead, she threw it out the window. 

¶ 17 Defendant also added that M.J.’s remark about taking Jaivon with him stuck in his head, 

and he decided to take Jaivon with him by killing him and committing suicide. Defendant 

stated that he stabbed Jaivon numerous times. He added that when the neighbor confronted him 

inside the garage, defendant hid the knife and drank a soda that he found inside a refrigerator. 

At some point, defendant stated that M.J. hit him in the face or head with a hammer but then 

said that he was not sure if the object was a hammer. 

¶ 18 Following this interview, defendant agreed to give a videotaped statement, which was 

recorded about 9:33 p.m. Kolman testified that defendant was fine at this time, and there was 

no change in his demeanor or mental status. 

¶ 19 On cross-examination, Kolman stated that the interview was a combination of defendant 

answering questions and providing his own answers in a narrative. He acknowledged that both 

the emergency room nurse and nurse Butardo told him that defendant was taking pain 

medication. Kolman testified that during the first two interviews, defendant spoke in a normal 

tone and his eyes were open. He acknowledged, however, that during the videotaped interview, 

there were a couple of occasions where defendant’s eyes appeared to close and ASA Sullivan 

asked defendant to open his eyes. Kolman explained that defendant seemed a bit more fatigued 

at the time of the video statement, but he was still cognizant in answering questions, even with 

his eyes closed. 

¶ 20 The State presented defendant’s videotaped statement, which the trial court admitted into 

evidence. The court then continued the case so that it could view the video before ruling on 

defendant’s motion. On the next court date, the court stated that it had viewed the video “not 

for the purposes of what actually was said in the video, but to observe whether or not 

Defendant’s actions were voluntary on the night in question.”

¶ 21 The court found that during the first interaction, when defendant made statements to 

Officer Adams, defendant “spontaneously” stated what he believed had occurred and made 

those statements voluntarily. The court then stated: 

“This case really comes down to the voluntariness of the Defendant’s statement in 

question. There’s no question as I watched the video where I could personally observe 

the Defendant that he had discomfort, he was in pain during portions of this. His eyes, 

at times, were closed. The State’s Attorney prompted him to open his eyes, did give an 

explanation at one point that it helped him by keeping his eyes closed to visualize what 

he was talking about. 

 Also indicate [sic] in the very beginning of the video, with the State’s Attorney, he 

was extremely quiet. It was difficult to hear him. I had to adjust my volume several 

times. But when he got to that portion of his statement which reference to the actual act 

of being with his son, he was—the volume was substantial, substantially different than 

what the initial interview occurred. 
- 6 - 

The State’s Attorney, Ms. Sullivan, was moving through the interview, attempting 

to get yes and no answers, and the Defendant wasn’t letting her get away with yes or no 

answers. He added great detail to many of the questions that she asked him at that point. 

 And finally, when asked about what he thought about the influence of the drugs that 

he was taking, he said he thought the drugs were making him talk faster. 

Although I recognize he was in discomfort, I recognize he was taking drugs, I don’t 

find that the statement was anything other than voluntary, on the night in question. 

Motion to suppress is denied.”

¶ 22 At trial, M.J. testified that she and defendant began dating in February 2006 and had a 

“very rocky” relationship. In March 2007, defendant punched M.J. in the face, giving her a 

black eye. M.J. initially pressed charges but dropped the charges when she learned she was 

pregnant. Their son Jaivon was born in November 2007, and in 2008, M.J. and Jaivon moved 

in with defendant. They lived together until their relationship ended in November 2010. M.J. 

and Jaivon then moved into her mother’s second-floor apartment. Defendant had no contact 

with M.J. and Jaivon until March 2011, at which time they resumed contact, but not a romantic 

relationship. 

¶ 23 In late July 2011, defendant began helping take care of Jaivon by taking him to and from 

school. M.J. allowed defendant to occasionally stay overnight at her mother’s apartment. 

When he did, defendant would stay in a separate bedroom from M.J. and Jaivon. On September 

1, 2011, defendant stayed overnight. 

¶ 24 The following morning, M.J., defendant, and Jaivon went to Northeastern Illinois 

University where M.J. was enrolled in school. When they returned to her mother’s apartment 

about 10 a.m., M.J.’s friend called on the phone, and M.J. agreed to go to a gym with her. 

While M.J. prepared to go, defendant asked her where she was going. M.J. replied that he did 

not have to worry about where she was going because they were no longer together. Defendant 

grabbed M.J.’s arm, and she punched him in the face and told him to get off of her. M.J. then 

went to her bedroom to get her workout clothes. 

¶ 25 As M.J. exited her bedroom, defendant pushed her onto her bed. He left her room for a 

brief moment, then returned, pushed her back onto the bed, and locked the bedroom door. M.J. 

observed that defendant was holding a butcher knife from the kitchen in his hand. Defendant 

told M.J. that she was either going to give it to him, or he was going to take it. He got on top of 

M.J. and ripped off her shorts and underwear. Defendant pulled down his shorts and underwear 

and inserted his penis into her vagina. M.J. tried to push defendant off of her but was 

unsuccessful. Defendant then stabbed M.J. in her upper left arm, left shoulder, and right arm. 

M.J. pleaded with defendant to stop and said she loved him to try to prevent him from stabbing 

her again. M.J. could hear Jaivon yelling and running back and forth in the apartment. M.J. 

broke free from defendant, and when she went to the bedroom door, he stabbed her on the side 

of her neck. 

¶ 26 M.J. exited the bedroom and entered the living room where Jaivon was sitting on the 

couch. Defendant fell as he followed M.J. into the living room. M.J. tried to wrestle the knife 

away from defendant, and he stabbed her in her left breast. M.J. wrestled the knife away from 

defendant and tried to exit the front door of the apartment, but it was locked. She threw the 

knife out the living room window. Defendant then threw a television at M.J. M.J. straddled the 

open window as defendant repeatedly punched M.J. in the face. Defendant then pushed M.J. 

out the window, and she fell to the ground. 
- 7 - 

¶ 27 M.J., wearing only a ripped top and her bra, ran into the street and yelled that defendant 

was going to kill her baby. She flagged down a police officer and was subsequently taken to 

“Cook County Hospital,” where medical personnel treated her injuries and conducted a sexual 

assault evaluation. As a result of her injuries, M.J. has scars on her arms, shoulder blade, neck, 

and breast. 

¶ 28 M.J. identified several photographs of her apartment, including her bed with bloody sheets 

and bloodstains where she leaned against the wall as she tried to exit the front door. M.J. also 

identified photos of a bloodstained knife on the kitchen counter, a bloodstained knife on the 

kitchen floor, and bloodstains on the kitchen floor that were not there when she went out the 

window. 

¶ 29 Randy Johnson was walking across Division Street when he observed that the blinds in the 

second-floor window of the building next to his were moving very fast. As he got closer, he 

observed a woman in the window engaged in a fight with a man who was holding a knife. The 

man was not wearing a shirt, and the woman’s clothes were ripped and bloody. It appeared that 

the woman was trying to escape and defending herself from being stabbed. Johnson ran toward 

the window and shouted at the man to leave the woman alone. The fighting stopped for a 

minute, then the woman opened the window and jumped out. At that same time, Johnson saw a 

butcher knife fall from the window. The woman landed at Johnson’s feet and bounced up. She 

was barely clothed, and the clothes she wore were ripped and bloody. The woman appeared 

terrified and ran into Division Street. Two days later, Johnson identified defendant in a photo 

array. 

¶ 30 Christopher Ferguson, a funeral director, testified that at 11 a.m. on September 2, he was 

hosting a funeral service inside a church on Division Street. As he looked out the window, he 

observed a young woman coming out of a second-floor window of a residence across the 

street. He then observed defendant behind the woman with a knife and saw him stabbing her in 

her shoulder and neck. Ferguson and a few other people ran out of the church and across the 

street in an attempt to stop the attack. As they did so, the woman fell from the window to the 

ground. She then jumped up and ran into the middle of Division Street. Ferguson flagged down 

a police officer and sat the woman down, who was bleeding. Based on her statements, 

Ferguson realized that there was a baby inside the house. Officer Jackson entered the building 

while Ferguson remained outside. Ferguson observed a knife on the grass outside the building. 

A short time later, Officer Jackson brought Ferguson to the area where defendant was detained, 

and Ferguson identified him as the man from the window. 

¶ 31 Chicago police officer Matthew Jackson testified that at 11 a.m. on September 2, he was 

driving westbound on Division Street when he observed a hysterical woman, whom he later 

learned was M.J., run into the street. She was bloody, and her top was torn. She approached the 

vehicle and told Jackson that she had been fighting with her boyfriend, defendant, who threw 

her out the window at knifepoint. She also said that her baby was inside the apartment, and she 

was afraid that defendant was going to kill him. When Jackson approached the building, he 

observed a large kitchen knife lying on the grass next to the pavement. 

¶ 32 Officer Jackson ran upstairs to the second-floor apartment and, after getting no response, 

kicked the door open and entered the unit with his gun drawn. He observed defendant standing 

at the back of the unit, holding a knife in his right hand. Defendant did not comply when 

ordered to drop the knife and went to his left, out of the officer’s sight. Jackson ran down the 

hallway into the kitchen where he observed the knife, bowed and bloody, lying on the kitchen 
- 8 - 

counter. He then observed defendant standing on the rear porch and heard dogs barking in the 

backyard. Jackson made eye contact with defendant and ordered him to stop. Defendant 

immediately jumped from the second-floor porch and landed in the backyard of the residence 

next door. While doing so, the lower part of defendant’s body hit a wooden fence, breaking 

some pickets. Defendant then hobbled past a garage and out Jackson’s sight.

¶ 33 Jackson returned inside the apartment and heard convulsions and a murmuring sound. He 

found Jaivon in the first bedroom, lying on his side on the floor adjacent to the bed. Jaivon was 

“decapitated” from a cut to the back of his neck and was bleeding profusely. He also had 

puncture wounds on his shoulders, chest, and arms. Jackson grabbed Jaivon by his body and 

neck, and when he turned him, Jaivon’s head literally fell from his neck. Jaivon was still 

experiencing convulsions and gurgling with blood coming from his neck. Jackson ran outside, 

grabbed a paramedic who was tending to M.J., and brought the paramedic to Jaivon. The 

paramedic immediately carried Jaivon to the dining room, cleared the table with one sweep of 

her hand, and started working on him. A short time later, Jackson went to the alley behind the 

building and identified defendant as the offender inside the apartment. 

¶ 34 The State then published a police observation device video that recorded the activity on 

Division Street. As the video played, Jackson narrated what occurred after he was flagged 

down. 

¶ 35 Deammie McGee testified that, on September 2, he was living with his aunt at 5035 West 

Crystal Street, which is the street north of Division Street. Shortly after 11 a.m., he observed 

their garage door open. He entered and observed defendant lying on the floor. McGee asked 

defendant what he was doing, and defendant claimed he lived there. McGee replied, “[N]o, I 

live here.” McGee alerted his aunt, who came out to the garage. McGee flagged down a police 

officer and told her that a young man was hiding in their garage. McGee’s aunt was yelling at 

defendant and opened the garage door. 

¶ 36 Chicago police officer Denise Oswald responded to a call for assistance with a battery 

offender in the rear of 5038 West Division Street shortly after 11 a.m. As she drove through the 

alley, she saw an individual jump over a fence. She exited her vehicle and heard a commotion 

inside a garage. The garage door opened, and Oswald saw an elderly woman yelling at 

defendant, telling him to get out of her garage and that he had damaged her car. Defendant was 

sweating and had blood on his hands up to his mid-arms. He was trying to open a refrigerator 

door and got blood all over the door. Oswald told defendant to stop and show her his hands. He 

closed his eyes and responded, “I’m tired, I’m thirsty, I’ve been fighting.” As he said the word 

fighting, defendant made fists with both of his hands and moved them back and forth. Oswald 

also observed cans of soda all over the floor. Oswald handcuffed defendant and asked him to 

walk with her, at which time he said his leg was injured. 

¶ 37 Officer Adams rode in the ambulance that transported defendant to the hospital and 

guarded defendant while he was being treated in the emergency room. Adams informed the 

physicians and nurses that a crime had occurred and that he needed defendant’s clothing as 

evidence. 

¶ 38 Officer Adams’s testimony regarding defendant’s statement was substantially the same as 

his testimony from the suppression hearing. Adams recounted defendant’s statement that he 

stabbed M.J. with a knife. Adams also described how defendant reenacted the stabbing of 

Jaivon, violently striking his handcuffs against the bed railing. Adams added that defendant’s 

portrayal of the act was “quite violent.” Adams denied asking defendant any questions and 
- 9 - 

responded to all of defendant’s questions by saying that he did not know. Adams testified that 

he was present when Detective Kolman advised defendant of his Miranda rights and defendant 

retold his story. 

¶ 39 Detective John Fuller arrived at 5038 West Division Street about 11:45 a.m. and was 

directed to a knife and blood on the ground outside the building. Defendant was detained in the 

alley behind the residence and was being treated by paramedics. Detective Fuller entered the 

second-floor apartment and observed signs of a violent struggle, including numerous items 

strewn about the floor and a large television on the floor near the windows. 

¶ 40 Fuller later went to West Suburban Medical Center with Detective Kolman and met with 

ASA Sullivan. Fuller spoke with nurse Butardo to determine defendant’s condition, whether or 

not he was capable of communicating with them, and whether it was medically advisable to 

speak with him. Defendant was responsive to their questions and statements, appeared to 

understand what was happening, and did not appear confused. 

¶ 41 Fuller testified to the details of defendant’s statement, which was substantially the same as 

Detective Kolman’s testimony from the suppression hearing. Fuller added that defendant said 

he tried to restrain M.J. from falling through the window when her shirt ripped and she fell to 

the ground. He also added that defendant said he stabbed Jaivon in the threshold of the kitchen, 

and Jaivon then walked to the front bedroom. Defendant said he placed the knife he used to kill 

Jaivon on the kitchen counter. 

¶ 42 Pediatrician Joy Marie Koopmans was working at the Cook County Trauma Unit when 

Jaivon arrived by ambulance. Attempts to resuscitate Jaivon were unsuccessful, and he was 

pronounced dead. Koopmans was also asked to assist in the medical treatment of M.J. and 

completed a criminal sexual assault evidence collection kit on her. 

¶ 43 The State presented a stipulation that deputy medical examiner Lauren Moser performed 

an autopsy on Jaivon and found multiple incised and stab wounds on his body. Jaivon had 

multiple incised wounds to his neck, one of which was a gaping wound that was 4 inches long 

by 11⁄2 inches wide and 1 inch deep. He also had three stab wounds to his back, which injured 

both of his lungs, his liver, the hepatic vein, and inferior vena cava and fractured a rib. 

Additional wounds included three stab wounds to the left side of his chest, a stab wound to his 

left shoulder, two through-and-through incised wounds to his left arm, a cluster of incised 

wounds to his left elbow, two incised wounds to his left forearm, a stab wound to his left 

forearm, and incised wounds to his shoulder, right thigh, right leg, left wrist, and left hand, 

which exposed the underlying tendons. Moser opined that Jaivon’s cause of death was multiple 

stab and incised wounds, and the manner of death was homicide. 

¶ 44 Edward Tomasik, a forensic investigator with the Chicago police department, processed 

the crime scene. He recovered three knives: a 13-inch knife with an 8-inch blade containing 

blood from the kitchen countertop, a 13-inch knife with an 8-inch blade from the kitchen floor, 

and a knife in front of the building. He also recovered several items of bloody clothing from the 

front bedroom. Tomasik went to the hospital and took swabs of red stains from defendant’s 

right hand and possession of defendant’s clothing. He also photographed Jaivon and M.J., and 

recovered clothing from M.J. 

¶ 45 Keman Hasanbegovic, a forensic scientist for the Illinois State Police, testified that the 

swabs taken from defendant’s right hand tested positive for blood. All three of the knives 

recovered in this case also tested positive for blood, and the blades of the two knives recovered 
- 10 - 

from the kitchen were bent. Defendant’s T-shirt, shorts, and gym shoes also tested positive for 

blood. In addition, the vaginal and anal swabs taken from M.J. tested positive for semen. 

¶ 46 Jennifer Belna, a forensic scientist for the Illinois State Police, found that Jaivon’s DNA 

matched the blood on both of the knives recovered from the kitchen and the blood on a piece of 

defendant’s T-shirt. M.J.’s DNA matched the blood on the knife recovered outside the building 

and blood on the handles of both of the knives recovered from the kitchen. M.J.’s DNA also 

matched the blood on defendant’s T-shirt, shorts, and shoes, as well as the swabs taken from 

his right hand. Defendant’s DNA matched the blood on the knife recovered from the kitchen 

floor and partially matched the blood on the handle of the knife recovered outside the building. 

Belna also found that the vaginal swabs taken from M.J. matched the DNA of M.J. and 

defendant. 

¶ 47 The State presented stipulations that Detective Kolman and nurse Butardo would testify 

the same as they did at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress. The State presented 

another stipulation that a fingerprint found on the knife recovered outside the building did not 

match defendant. 

¶ 48 Defendant presented a stipulation that Detective Kolman would testify that he interviewed 

M.J. on September 2, and she told him that when she began climbing out the window, 

defendant pulled her back. She also stated that defendant had her by her shirt, but it ripped, at 

which time she fell. 

¶ 49 Finding the evidence “absolutely overwhelming as to defendant’s guilt,” the trial court 

found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Jaivon. As to M.J., the court found 

defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, 

aggravated domestic battery, aggravated battery, and aggravated unlawful restraint. The court 

found defendant not guilty of aggravated kidnapping. 

¶ 50 Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it 

allowed Officer Adams to testify about defendant’s statements at the suppression hearing and 

at trial because Adams did not document those statements and they were not disclosed to the 

defense until two days prior to the suppression hearing. Defendant’s motion did not allege that 

the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the statements. The trial court denied the 

motion. 

¶ 51 At sentencing, M.J. and her mother, Betty J., read their victim impact statements describing 

their pain due to Jaivon’s murder. M.J. also asked that justice be served for Jaivon and herself. 

The State presented a certified copy of defendant’s birth certificate showing his date of birth as 

December 30, 1983. 

¶ 52 Defendant’s uncle, Victor Agee, read a statement on behalf of defendant’s family, initially 

stating that they did not condone the killing of Jaivon or defendant’s “horrific attack” of M.J., 

and extending their sympathy to her and her family. Agee expressed the family’s pain at the 

loss of Jaivon and stated that they were “appalled by this atrocity.” He further stated that the 

family was certain that there were circumstances that contributed to the “intense evil and dark 

act” committed by defendant. Agee explained that defendant lost one brother to gang violence, 

another brother to suicide, and his father to cancer. Defendant had difficulty adjusting to the 

loss, suffered “acute depression,” and was advised by family members to seek counseling. 

Agee characterized defendant as a caring young man with goals and dreams who was taught 

Christian values and respect for others. Defendant was employed until he became too 

depressed to effectively work during the six months prior to the murder and lost his ability to 
- 11 - 

handle the everyday stresses of life. The family requested that defendant be placed where he 

would receive psychological treatment so that he could remit his actions with rehabilitation 

and in some way prevent others from going to a deep place of depression and rage. 

¶ 53 The State pointed out that it previously filed a notice of intent to seek natural life 

imprisonment based on the fact that defendant murdered a child, that he acted with intent to kill 

the child, and that he committed the murder during the course of another inherently violent 

felony. The State also requested an extended-term sentence for the aggravated criminal sexual 

assault, in addition to sentences for the attempted first degree murder and aggravated domestic 

battery of M.J. 

¶ 54 In aggravation, the State argued that a sentence of natural life imprisonment was 

appropriate in this case in order to achieve some measure of justice for Jaivon, which M.J. 

requested in her victim impact statement. The State noted that M.J. will spend the rest of her 

life wondering what Jaivon’s last thoughts were and the terror that he felt. The State further 

argued that M.J. was also entitled to justice for what defendant did to her and requested that the 

sentences for those offenses be nowhere near the minimum terms and closer to the maximum 

ends of the sentencing ranges. The State pointed out that Jaivon was present in the apartment 

when defendant raped and stabbed his mother and while M.J. tried to escape, spreading blood 

everywhere. The State further argued that it was absolutely appropriate and not a legal nullity 

to sentence defendant to a term that was consecutive to a natural life sentence. The State argued 

that justice demanded consecutive sentences in this case because defendant deserved the 

consequences of what he brought upon himself. The State remarked that Agee’s statement on 

behalf of defendant’s family was very powerful and correct. The State repeatedly stated that 

there was no explanation for what defendant did and that defendant had no justification for 

raping M.J. and for “slaughtering his child.”

¶ 55 In mitigation, defense counsel argued that there was nothing she could say about defendant 

that his uncle had not already said. Counsel noted that the court had been tendered additional 

letters from defendant’s family and friends on the last court date and that they knew defendant 

better than she. Counsel stated that she could not explain what happened that day with 

defendant or why it happened. Counsel pointed out that the court had the presentence 

investigation report (PSI) and specifically noted that defendant did not have a violent 

background and was not a violent person. Counsel stated that two families lost Jaivon and that 

she had gotten to know defendant’s family over the past three years, and it was a good and

close family. Counsel asked that the court not sentence defendant to natural life and, instead, to 

impose a term of years. Defendant declined to make a statement in allocution. Defendant’s PSI 

indicates that he had three prior drug convictions. 

¶ 56 The trial court stated that it reviewed its notes from the trial and that the trial was very fresh 

in the court’s mind. The court further stated that it reviewed the information contained in the 

PSI and gave consideration to the impact statements made by both families, as well as the 

arguments from counsel. The court then stated: 

“Mr. Sandifer, I have been doing this a long time, and unfortunately in many cases 

we come a little hardened in how we handle cases. This case was not that situation. 

When it comes to children, things are much, much different. It was clear to me as this 

trial progressed, as I looked at both sides of the aisle, you came from a great family. It’s 

not easy for your family to show up in a situation based upon the facts of this case. 

They did. There are very strong family ties in this matter, but your actions in this case 
- 12 - 

are absolutely inexplicable to this Court. I had no idea how any father could do that to 

his son. 

 As to Count 1, first degree murder, I find the appropriate sentence in this case to be 

the rest of your natural life.”

The court sentenced defendant to a consecutive term of 25 years’ imprisonment for the 

attempted first degree murder of M.J. and concurrent prison terms of 18 years for aggravated 

criminal sexual assault and 7 years for aggravated domestic battery. The aggravated battery 

and aggravated unlawful restraint convictions were merged. Defendant’s motion to reconsider 

the sentence was denied. 

¶ 57 On appeal, defendant first contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to 

suppress his statements because his severe pain and the pain medication administered to him at 

the time of his statements rendered him unable to knowingly and intelligently waive his 

Miranda rights and make a voluntary statement. Defendant claims that the videotaped 

statement demonstrates that he was experiencing cognitive impairment during the 

interrogations. Defendant argues that, although the police testified that he was oriented and not 

confused, their testimony does not show that he had the cognitive ability to understand his 

rights. He further argues that the admission of the statements was not harmless error because 

they were “devastating” to his case.

¶ 58 Defendant acknowledges that he did not properly preserve this issue. He argues, however, 

that his forfeiture should be overlooked because the trial court fully considered the issue at the 

hearing on his motion to suppress. Alternatively, he asserts that the issue should be considered 

under the second prong of the plain error doctrine and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance because she failed to preserve the issue. 

¶ 59 The State responds that defendant forfeited the issue and that the plain error doctrine does 

not apply because the trial court did not err when it admitted his voluntary statements. The 

State argues that Miranda warnings were not required for defendant’s statements to Officer 

Adams because they were not made during an interrogation, but instead, were made 

spontaneously and voluntarily of his own free will. The State further argues that defendant’s 

three subsequent statements were voluntarily and knowingly made after defendant was advised 

of his Miranda rights. The State asserts that the mere fact that defendant was in pain and taking 

medication did not fatally undermine his ability to give his voluntary statements where the 

record shows that he was alert and responsive, showed no signs of confusion, and provided 

detailed answers to open-ended questions. Alternatively, the State argues that if any error 

occurred in admitting the statements, it was harmless because the evidence against defendant 

was overwhelming. 

¶ 60 To preserve an issue for appeal, defendant must make an objection at trial and raise the 

issue in a written posttrial motion. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). Defendant 

acknowledges that he did not fully address the issue in his motion for a new trial. 

¶ 61 Although not raised by the parties, this court may address the issue by applying an 

exception to the forfeiture rule. Our supreme court has held that an exception exists for 

constitutional issues that were properly raised at trial that may be raised later in a 

postconviction petition. People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 16 (citing Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d at 

190). The primary basis for this exception is judicial economy. Id. ¶ 18. The Cregan court 

reasoned that if a defendant was precluded from raising a constitutional issue previously raised 

at trial on direct appeal, merely because he failed to raise it in a posttrial motion, he could 
- 13 - 

simply raise the issue in a subsequent postconviction petition. Id. “Accordingly, the interests in 

judicial economy favor addressing the issue on direct appeal rather than requiring defendant to 

raise it in a separate postconviction petition.” Id.

¶ 62 Here, defendant’s motion to suppress his statements as involuntary asserts a violation of 

his constitutional rights. We therefore find that the constitutional-issue exception applies 

because defendant raised the issue at trial and could have raised it in a subsequent 

postconviction petition. Accordingly, we address the issue in this appeal. 

¶ 63 The trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress statements presents questions of both fact 

and law. People v. Richardson, 234 Ill. 2d 233, 251 (2009). The court’s factual findings and 

credibility determinations will not be disturbed on review unless they are against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. Id. We afford great deference to the trial court’s factual findings 

because it was in the superior position to determine and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, 

observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and resolve conflicts in their testimony. Id. The court’s 

ultimate finding of voluntariness is a question of law that we review de novo. People v. 

Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 32. In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we 

may consider the evidence adduced at trial as well as the suppression hearing. Richardson, 234 

Ill. 2d at 252. 

¶ 64 The test for voluntariness is whether the defendant made his statements freely and 

voluntarily, without any kind of compulsion or inducement, or whether his will was overborne 

at the time of his confession. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 31. If his will was overborne, the 

defendant’s confession cannot be considered the product of a rational intellect and free will. 

People v. Kincaid, 87 Ill. 2d 107, 117 (1981). 

¶ 65 In determining whether a confession is voluntary, the court must consider the totality of the 

circumstances by weighing several factors including the defendant’s age, experience, 

background, intelligence, education, mental capacity, and his physical condition at the time of 

questioning. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 31. Additional factors include whether Miranda

warnings were given, the legality and duration of the detention, the duration of the questioning, 

and any mental or physical abuse by police, including threats or promises. Richardson, 234 Ill. 

2d at 253-54. In order to be valid, the defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights must have been 

knowingly and intelligently made with a basic understanding of what those rights encompass 

and the likely consequences of his waiver. People v. Braggs, 209 Ill. 2d 492, 514-15 (2003). It 

is the State’s burden to establish that the defendant’s confession was voluntary by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 31.

¶ 66 The fact that a defendant was under the influence of drugs, self-administered or otherwise, 

when he made a confession does not render the confession automatically inadmissible. 

Kincaid, 87 Ill. 2d at 119. However, a confession that was, “in fact, induced by the 

administration of a drug” is involuntary, and therefore, not admissible into evidence. 

(Emphasis in original.) Id. at 117. The practical effect of such circumstances is to overcome the 

will of the accused by lowering his ability to resist suggestions, subtle threats, or promises by 

interrogators. Id. A confession obtained in such manner thereby violates due process. Id. 

¶ 67 This court has viewed the video of defendant’s statement. After doing so, we question 

defendant’s ability to knowingly waive his Miranda rights and render a confession that was 

truly voluntary given his injury, the excruciating pain he was experiencing, and the level of 

medication he had received.
- 14 - 

¶ 68 The video shows defendant lying in his hospital bed with ASA Sullivan sitting next to him, 

conducting the interview. Defendant speaks very softly during much of the interview, and 

Sullivan has to ask him to speak louder. Defendant closes his eyes several times, and Sullivan 

asks him to open them. The video clearly shows that defendant is suffering an enormous 

amount of pain from his shattered ankle, and he tells Sullivan that his leg hurts. Sullivan 

acknowledges that defendant had been given pain medication and asks him if the medication 

was affecting his understanding. Defendant replies “no, it just make me want to speed it up 

more, talk a little faster.” At the end of the video, Sullivan asks defendant if there is anything 

more he would like to say. Defendant replies “no, I just want more pain medicine.”

¶ 69 The record shows that at the time of the videotaped statement, defendant had received three 

doses of morphine and one dose of Dilaudid for his pain. The dose of Dilaudid, the stronger of 

the two medications, was administered after defendant complained that the morphine had not 

significantly reduced his level of pain. Earlier in the evening, defendant indicated that his level 

of pain on a scale of 1 to 10 was a 12, and after taking the Dilaudid, his pain level only 

decreased to a 10. 

¶ 70 While we find nothing improper about the questioning by the police or the ASA, given the 

fact that, at the time of the videotaped statement, defendant was suffering a tremendous 

amount of excruciating pain from his shattered ankle and that he had received multiple doses of 

strong pain medication, we find that he was not in a position to voluntarily confess. Therefore, 

based on this record, the trial court’s determination that defendant’s statement was voluntary 

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the court erred when it denied 

defendant’s motion to suppress the statement.

¶ 71 Nevertheless, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, even without the 

videotaped statement, we find that the admission of the statement was harmless error. The 

United States Supreme Court has held that the admission of an involuntary confession at trial is 

subject to harmless error analysis. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 303 (1991). In 

analyzing that holding, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that the Fulminante Court determined 

that the admission of an involuntary statement or confession was “ ‘similar in both degree and 

kind to the erroneous admission of other types of evidence’ ” and therefore was a trial error 

subject to harmless-error review. People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 67 (quoting Fulminante, 

499 U.S. at 310). The Wrice court further noted that “Chief Justice Rehnquist distinguished 

Fulminante from cases involving physical coercion, stating that application of harmless error 

is ‘especially true in a case such as this one where there are no allegations of physical violence 

on behalf of the police.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 72 (quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 

311). Based on the holding in Fulminante, the Wrice court “recast” the rule in Illinois to 

provide that “use of a defendant’s physically coerced confession as substantive evidence of his 

guilt is never harmless error.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 71. 

¶ 72 In this case, defendant’s claim of involuntariness is based upon multiple doses of pain 

medication he was given and the intense pain he was suffering from as a result of an ankle that 

was “broken into pieces.” There is no claim by defendant of any form of police coercion, 

physical or otherwise. We emphasize our earlier finding that the police did nothing improper in 

this case. Accordingly, we can apply a harmless-error review. 

¶ 73 The test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. People v. Patterson, 

217 Ill. 2d 407, 428 (2005). Under this test, there are three different approaches for measuring 
- 15 - 

an error: (1) focus on the error to determine if it contributed to the conviction, (2) analyze the 

other evidence in the case to determine if there is overwhelming evidence that supports the 

conviction, and (3) determine if the improperly admitted evidence is merely cumulative or 

duplicates evidence that was properly admitted. Id.

¶ 74 Here, even without defendant’s videotaped statement, the record reveals that the 

overwhelming evidence supports his convictions. M.J. testified that defendant ripped off her 

clothes and sexually assaulted her while holding a butcher knife in his hand. He then stabbed 

her multiple times, punched her in the face, threw a television at her, and pushed her out of the 

second-floor window. M.J. also testified that Jaivon was in the apartment. Several photographs 

depicted bloody sheets on the bed, bloodstained knives in the kitchen, and bloodstains 

throughout the apartment, some of which were not there when M.J. went out the window. 

¶ 75 In addition, two eyewitnesses, Johnson and Ferguson, testified that they saw defendant 

stabbing M.J. in the window, then saw her fall from the window. Johnson also saw a butcher 

knife fall from the window, and Ferguson and Officer Jackson saw that knife lying in the grass. 

Officer Jackson entered the apartment and saw defendant standing at the back of the unit 

holding a knife in his hand. Jackson observed defendant flee from the apartment by jumping 

into the yard next door. Jackson then found Jaivon in the front bedroom bleeding profusely 

with numerous stab wounds about his body. Defendant was found hiding inside a neighbor’s 

garage with blood on his hands up to his mid-arms. The medical examiner found multiple stab 

and incised wounds on Jaivon’s body and determined that his manner of death was homicide.

¶ 76 In addition to the testimony, the physical evidence included three bloodstained knives 

recovered at the scene—two in the kitchen and one outside the building. There was also an 

abundance of DNA evidence, which indicated that Jaivon’s blood was on defendant’s shirt and 

both of the knives recovered from the kitchen. M.J.’s blood was on defendant’s clothes, shoes, 

and hands and the knife recovered outside the building. Defendant’s DNA was on the knife 

found outside the building, one of the knives in the kitchen, and on the vaginal swabs taken 

from M.J. 

¶ 77 In light of this overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we find that even without his 

recorded statement, the evidence strongly supported his convictions. We therefore conclude 

that the admission of his statement was harmless error. Based on our conclusion, we need not 

address any of defendant’s prior statements as the voluntariness of those statements would also 

be subject to harmless error and thus moot. 

¶ 78 Defendant next contends, and the State agrees, that his conviction for aggravated domestic 

battery must be vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule because that conviction and his 

attempted murder conviction are both based on the same single physical act of defendant 

stabbing M.J. with a knife. See People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 97 (2010) (where defendant 

is convicted of two offenses based on the same single physical act, the conviction for the less 

serious offense must be vacated). Pursuant to our authority (Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(b)(1)); People v. 

McCray, 273 Ill. App. 3d 396, 403 (1995)), we vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence for 

aggravated domestic battery and direct the clerk of the circuit court to amend the mittimus to 

reflect this modification. 

¶ 79 Finally, defendant concedes that he met the statutory requirements for a sentence of natural 

life imprisonment but contends that such sentence is excessive because the trial court failed to 

give consideration to the nonviolent nature of his limited criminal history. Defendant also 

argues that the court failed to give any consideration to his potential for rehabilitation, or the 
- 16 - 

fact that he committed the offense during a time when he was experiencing psychological 

turmoil and depression. Defendant requests that this court reduce his sentence to a term of 

years. 

¶ 80 A defendant convicted of first degree murder may be sentenced to a term of natural life 

imprisonment when the murdered individual was killed during the course of another felony if 

the individual was actually killed by the defendant, the defendant acted with the intent to kill 

the murdered individual or with the knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of 

death, and the other felony was an inherently violent crime, including aggravated criminal 

sexual assault. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1), (b) (West 2010); 720 ILCS 5/9-1(b)(6) (West 2010). 

The trial court has broad discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence, and where, as here, 

that sentence complies with the statutory requirements it will not be disturbed on review absent 

an abuse of discretion. People v. Jones, 168 Ill. 2d 367, 373-74 (1995). An abuse of discretion 

exists where a sentence is at great variance with the spirit and purpose of the law or is 

manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense. People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 

212 (2010). 

¶ 81 The Illinois Constitution mandates that criminal penalties be determined according to the 

seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. 

Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11; People v. Ligon, 2016 IL 118023, ¶ 10. In light of these objectives, 

“the trial court is charged with fashioning a sentence based upon the particular circumstances 

of the individual case, including the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant.” 

People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 55 (1999). The court’s sentencing decision is entitled to great 

deference because, having observed the defendant and the proceedings, it had the opportunity 

to weigh defendant’s demeanor, credibility, general moral character, mentality, habits, social 

environment, and age. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 213. “The sentencing judge is to consider ‘all 

matters reflecting upon the defendant’s personality, propensities, purposes, tendencies, and 

indeed every aspect of his life relevant to the sentencing proceeding.’ ” Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 55 

(quoting People v. Barrow, 133 Ill. 2d 226, 281 (1989)). 

¶ 82 We presume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the trial court gave consideration to the 

mitigating evidence that was presented. People v. Burton, 184 Ill. 2d 1, 34 (1998). Moreover, 

the trial court need not give defendant’s potential for rehabilitation greater weight than the 

seriousness of the offense, which is the most important factor in determining a sentence. 

People v. Gordon, 2016 IL App (1st) 134004, ¶ 52. 

¶ 83 Here, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sentencing defendant to a term of 

natural life imprisonment, which complied with the statutory requirements. The trial court 

expressly stated that it reviewed the information contained in defendant’s PSI, which indicates 

that his criminal history was comprised of three prior drug convictions. Defense counsel also 

argued in mitigation that defendant did not have a violent background and was not a violent 

person. Therefore, the court was aware that defendant had a limited criminal history that 

consisted of the nonviolent drug convictions. 

¶ 84 The court also stated that it gave consideration to the impact statements made by both 

families at the sentencing hearing. In his statement, defendant’s uncle explained that defendant 

had difficulty adjusting to the loss of his two brothers and his father and that defendant suffered 

from “acute depression,” which rendered him unable to maintain employment. He stated that 

family members had advised defendant to seek counseling. Defendant’s uncle also stated that 

defendant had lost his ability to handle the everyday stresses of life, and requested that 
- 17 - 

defendant be placed somewhere where he could receive psychological treatment. The record 

thus shows that the court was aware that defendant was suffering from depression at the time of 

the offense and gave consideration to that information. 

¶ 85 The record also shows, however, that the trial court was extremely disturbed by the facts 

and circumstances involved in defendant’s murder of his three-year-old son. Officer Jackson 

testified at trial that he found Jaivon lying on the bedroom floor experiencing convulsions, 

murmuring, and gurgling with blood coming from his neck. Jaivon was nearly decapitated 

from a cut to the back of his neck and was bleeding profusely. The parties stipulated that the 

medical examiner described the cut to Jaivon’s neck as a gaping wound that was 4 inches long 

by 11⁄2 inches wide and 1 inch deep. The medical examiner also found that Jaivon suffered 

numerous stab and incised wounds to his back, chest, shoulders, left arm and right leg. In 

imposing the sentence, the trial court stated that defendant’s actions were “absolutely 

inexplicable” and that it “had no idea how any father could do that to his son.” The court then 

stated “I find the appropriate sentence in this case to be the rest of your natural life.”

¶ 86 The record therefore shows that the trial court properly based defendant’s sentence on its 

consideration of the seriousness of the offense, the factors in aggravation and mitigation, 

which included his nonviolent criminal history, the information contained in the PSI, and the 

evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. This court will not reweigh the sentencing 

factors or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court (Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 213), and 

based on the record before us, we cannot say that the sentence imposed by the court is 

excessive, manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense, or that it departs 

significantly from the intent and purpose of the law. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 56. Accordingly, we 

find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sentencing defendant to a term of natural life 

imprisonment. 

¶ 87 For these reasons, we vacate the aggravated domestic battery conviction and affirm 

defendant’s convictions and sentences for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, 

and aggravated criminal sexual assault in all other respects. 

¶ 88 Affirmed as modified.