Docket No . 108932.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOP LE OF TH

E STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appel

la nt, v. DIONE ALEXA NDER, Appel

le e.
Opinion filed November 18, 2010.

JUSTICE BU RK E de l i

v er ed th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Chi ef Jus t ice Kilbride and Jus t ices Fr eeman, Tho mas, G ar man, Karmeier , a nd T heis co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

Defend ant Dione Alexande r w as c onvict ed o f agg ra va te d dis chargeof

a f i rea rm an d un l aw f ul us e of we ap on s a

n d s en ten ce d to 24 years’ i

mpr iso nme nt by the c ircu it co ur t of P eo ria Co unt y. The appe l l ate cou rt fo und d efenda nt ’s se nt ence t o be exce ssive and reduced it t o t he st at ut o ry mand atory m i ni m um of si x y ea rs . No. 3–08–0373 (unpubl

i sh ed orde r un de r Su pre me C ourt R

ule 2 3). For t he re as on s th

at f ol l ow, we re v er se th e a pp el l ate cou rt ’s judg ment a nd rei nstate def endan t’s 24 -year s en

tenc e.

BACK GROUND Defendant’s co nvic ti on s r esul ted f rom a s hooti ng i nc i de nt on Jan uary 26, 200 5, at Woodru ff High Schoo l i

n Peoria, Illi

nois.-2- Defend ant fi

red several sh

ots at Om

ar Por ter , a f el l ow studen

t, follow inga co nfro nt at ion bet wee n defend ant and P or t er . T he sho ot ing took pl ac e i n th e h al l wa y du ri n g a pa ss i n g p eri od w

h en oth er stu den ts and teach ers w ere pr

ese nt. A j ury convi cted defen

dant of aggravated dis chargeof a fi

rearm (720 ILCS 5/ 24–1.2( a)(1) (West 2004) ) a nd unl awful use of weapons

(720 ILCS 5/24–1(a)(4) (Wes t 200 4) ). The tr i al cour t sentenced defendant as a Class X f elon to 24 years’ impriso nment and a thre e-y ear pe ri od of m andatory supervised release (MSR). 730 ILCS 5/5–8–1(a)(3) (W es t 200 4) ( sente nc i ng ran gef or a Cl ass X f elony i s 6 to 30 y

ears ). The appe l l ate court

rev ers ed an d re man de d f ora new sent encing heari ng. People v. Alexander , No. 3–06–0263 ( 2008) (unpubl is hed order under Suprem

e Court Rule 23). The appel la te court hel

d t ha t t he trial court had consi

dered an i

mproper aggravati

ng f actor at sentenci ng, nam el y, that the off

ense took placein a sc ho o l. Th at f ac tor sho uld not have b een

considered

in aggravation b ecause i

t had al ready served to el evate the off

ense to a C la s s X fel

ony. See 720 ILCS 5/ 24– 1. 2( b) (West 2004). See People v. Conover, 84 Ill . 2d 400, 404- 05 (1 981 ) ( a fact or which i s i nh ere nt in an offense may not also be
cons i dered

by the s en tenc i ng c ourt as an

aggra va tin g f actor). On r e ma nd to t he trial

court , the fol lowi

ng ev ide nce was in tro duced at the resentenci ng he arin g on May 16, 200 8. Acco rd ing to t he origin

al an d updat ed presentence inv estigation repo rts, defen da nt wa s 1 5 y

ea rs ol d a t th e ti me of h i s a rre st. De f en da n t w a s re siding wit h his n at ur al fa th er. Defen dant’s m ot her was se

rvi ng a term of prob ati on f ort he a gg ra vat ed bat t er y of a po lice officer . O f the 11 ch ildr en in

de f en da n t’s i m med i ate family, o ne o t he rsiblin g w as in t he care of

the Ju ve ni l e D i vi si on of the Ill i noi s D ep artm

en t of Correcti ons. In June 2001, at age 12, defe ndan t wa s take n i

nto c us tody f or st ealing a p ur se, and in June 200 2, h e w asde tai

ne d by the pol i cef or t hro wing a rock at a car. In Apri l 2003, defen

dant was charged as a juv en ile with un

la wful possession of a m

ot or vehicl e. In Jul

y 2003, defend ant wasch arg ed wit h t hre e co unt s o f ret ail theft for st ealing two BB guns

and a pai r o f j eans. The

two cases were consoli

dated, and defend ant was adjud icat ed d elinquent as t o t he mot or vehi cl e charge. Defe

ndan t was ma

de a ward of the court, placed on 15 months’ pr ob ati

o n , a n d 7 da y s’ de ten ti on . W h en de f en da n t f ai l ed to-3- appear fo r a re vi ew he ar ing, a “no bo nd” w ar ra nt was issued , a nd defend ant was sen

tenced t o t he Pe ori

a D ru g Tr ea tmen t You th Cou rt. Fourwa rra nts we re i ss ue d f rom Novem be r to Ja nu ary asa re sul

t of h is f ai l ur e to a pp ea r i n dr ug cou rt a s or dere d. D ef

en da n t f ai l ed to
com pl ete t he dr ug c ou rt pr og ra m and wa s discha rg ed fr om t he pr o gr am. On June 9, 200 4, defend ant was arrested for unl awful pos se ss i on wi th i nte nt to d el i ve r a c ontr ol l ed su bs tan cean d un l aw f ul pos se ss i on o f a controlled s

ubstance. The

arrest resulted from

a drug rai d a t defendant’s mot her’s home , where def endan t was li vi ng at the tim

e. He was adj udic ated deli

nquen t for the amen

ded off ense of attempted pos se ss i on

of a controll ed substance and pla ced on proba tion f or a term of 18 m onths. Defen

dant co mplet ed a lif

e sk ill s pr og ra m and report ed o n his pr o ba t io n w ee kly u nt il two weeks before hi s arrest in t he present off

ense, wh en h

e stopped repo rting. Def

endan t also had three cur few vio latio ns and one trua nc y vi ol ati on from 2001 through 2003. Defend ant wa s e

n rol l ed i n th e n i n th grade a t Woodr uff

High Sch ool at the time

of the sh

oot in g. He had partici

pated in special
e duc ati on serv i ces f or spee ch and l anguag e si

nc e the sec ond gr

a de

. His father was

recei vi ng soci al securi ty be nef its as a resul t o f defend ant bein

g classif ied a disabl

ed child. De fendant’s social history
was ma rked by school sus

pensi ons f or fi ghtin g, fai lingto f ol l ow sch ool rul es, a nd f or di sres pect to pers ons i

n a uthori ty. Fo llowing his arre st f

or the of f en se i n th i s ca se, de fen

dant was detain ed for m ore t han a y ear at the Pe ori a C oun

ty Ju ve ni l e D ete nti on Cen ter. Du r ing t ha t t ime, he at t en de d e du ca t io na l cla sse s, w he r e it
was repo rted that he co oper ated with t he staff and m et expect ations. A reportin dic ated that he had adj ustedpo sitively to t he st ru ct ur e and rules of th e f ac i l i ty , had di sp l ay ed appr opri ate

behavio r, and devel

oped po sitive re l ati

on sh i pswi th pee rs a nd st aff. He was par t icipat ing in the

“ Hon orPod” pro gr a m . De f

en da nt tol d the p res en

ten cei nv es ti ga tor that he woul

d li ke to com pl ete h i s GEDand study

wel di ng. Defendant’s j uve

ni l e deten tion record shows that defenda

nt was written up on mul tiple occasi ons between

Feb ruary 2005 a nd F ebruary 2006 f or fi ghti ng a nd th reaten i ng other d e tainees and staff . These i n ci den ts included “thr ow ing chair s ar ou nd t he da yro om and t hre at ening to do b odi

l y h ar m to a s taf f mem b er”; “ th re ate n i n g to-4- sm ack” several

fem al e detain

ees; pun chi ng o ther det ainees; and “at t empt ingto attack” anot her det ain ee i n conn ection wi th all eged gan g acti vi ty. Defend ant wa s r el

ea se d on F eb rua ry 17 , 20 06 , fr o m t he Pe o r ia Cou n ty jai l to t he custod y of the Il li nois D ep ar t me nt o f Ju ve nile Justice at the Ill in ois Youth Center i

n St. Charl es. On March

2, 2006, he wastra ns f

erre d t o t he I lli

nois Y ou t h Cent er in Har risbur g. The Harrisb urgf ac i l i ty report ed that defen

dant lost 30 day s’ good-conduct
cr ed it f or f i gh ti n g i n De cem b er 20 06 an d l ost 6 months ’ good-co nduct
cr ed it for bei

ng i nvol ved i n a dan gerous disturban

ce i n Jan uary 2007. Defend ant was re leased t o t he I lli nois D epa rt ment of

Co rr ect ions f ac i l i ty in Menard on Jul

y 13, 20 07. On A

ugust 1, 2007, he was transferred

t o t he Pinck neyvill

e Co rr ect ional Ce nt er , w her e he remai ned in cu stod y un ti l hi s tra ns f er to th e Pe ori a C oun

ty j ai l on Apr i l 1, 2 00 8, t o aw ai

t re se n ten ci n g. D ef en da n t re ce i v ed n o re por ts of m is conduct after January

2007. Defe ndan t wro te a letter addressed to t he trial judge in which he stated that he had m

atured over t he l

ast four yea

rs and that he h

ad l ea rned f rom h i s m i sta ke s. He wr ote th at h

e w oul d l i ke to apologiz e to Oma r Port er an d to al l those h

e had en dangered b

y h is crim e. He stated t ha t he wo uld like t o co mple t e h is e du ca t io n so t ha t he co uld i m prove his l i f e. The State requested that the trial court sentence

defen dant to 24 years’ impr iso nme nt

. T he pr o se cu t o rar gu ed t hr ee st at ut o ry fac t o r s in agg ra vat ion: (1) that defendan t’s conduct threatenedseri ous harm , (2) that d ef en da n t h ad a histo ry o f prio r d elinquenc y, and (3 ) t hat t he sentence was necessary

to deter ot hers. The S tate aske d th e c our t to consider asnon sta tutory ag gra va ti ng f ac tors d ef en da nt’ s i nc i de nts of fighting i n s ch ool and in t he juvenile de t ent ion facility, a nd t he na ture
and ci rcum stan ces of the of f en se. Defens e counsel

argu ed th at th e a pp rop riate

sentenci ng range was between 6 to 10 years, noting def

endan t’s age at the time

of the cri me , t he no nvio len t na t ur e o f his d elin q uenc y adjudica t ions, t he impro vement in defenda nt ’s gr ade s, a nd de fendant ’s let t er t o t he
cou rt. De f en da n t m ade a sta te m ent t o t he co ur t in which he apologiz ed

fo rhis crim

e, acknowl edged that this was a seri ous case, and st at ed t hat he wo uld l ea rn f rom the si tua ti on a nd tha t i t woul d n ot-5- happ en ag ain. Af ter con si deri n g th e a rgum en ts of c ou nsel, t he t r ial c o ur t ag ain
se n ten ce d def en da n t to 24 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. On appe al , the a

pp el l ate cou rt hel d th at th e s entence was
excess iv e, an d, p ur suan t to i ts a uth o r it y un de rSu pr eme Co ur t Ru le 615(b)(4 ), reduc ed de f

endan t’s s en tenc e to si

x y ears , the statutory minimum. S ee 134 Ill . 2d R. 615(b)(4). The disse ntin g jus tice
ma in taine dthat t he m

aj ority’ s deci si on represented a rewei ghing of t he sentenci

ng f actors, whi

ch ci rcu m ve nte d a nd nu l l i f i ed the di screti on of the sentencin g ju dge. No. 3–08–0373 (unpubli shed order under Supreme Court Ru

l e 23) (H old

ri dge, J ., di sse

nti ng)

. We gra nte d the Sta

te’ s p eti ti on f orlea ve t o ap pe al. 210 Ill. 2d R. 315(a ).

AN AL YSIS The so le i ss ue

on appe al i s w h eth er th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts di screti on i n se n ten ci n g d ef en da n t to 24 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. Su pr eme Court Rul

e 615 (b)(4 ) gran

ts a rev i ewi ng c ourt th e p owe

r to reduce a se

nten ce. 13 4 I ll . 2d R. 6 15(b )(4). That power, h owev er, sho uld be exercis ed “ ‘c autiousl y a nd spari ngl y.’ ” People v. Jones , 168 Ill . 2d 367, 378 (1995), quot in g Peopl e v. O’Neal , 125 Ill . 2d 291, 300 ( 1988) . A reviewing cour t may not alt er a de fendant’s sentence ab se n t an ab use of d

i scre tion by the tri al court. People v. Hausch ild, 22 6 I ll. 2d 63 (2007) . A sentence wil l b e deemed an ab

use of dis cr et io n w he r e t he se nt en ce is “ gr ea tl y at v ari an ce wi th t he sp irit
an d pu rpos e of th e l aw , or m an i f estl y di sprop orti

on ate to the n ature of t he off en se.” People v. Stacey , 1 93 I ll. 2d 2 03, 210 (2 000 ), citing People v. Fern , 189 Il

l . 2d 48, 5 4 (199 9). The t r ial c ourt has broad dis cretionary powers in

im posin g a sentence , and its s ent encing deci si ons are enti tled to great deferen

ce. Stacey , 193 Ill . 2d at 209 (citi ng Fern , 18 9 I ll. 2d at 53, and People
v. Perruquet

, 68 Ill . 2d 149, 154 (1977)). “A reviewi ng court give s great deferen

ce to t he trial

co urt ’s judg ment r ega rd ing sent encing because the tri

al j udge , h av ing o bser ved t he de fendant and t he pro ceedings, h as

a f ar b ette r op por tun i ty to consider

these f actors t han t he re viewing co ur t , w hich must re ly on t he ‘cold’ record.” Fern , 189 I ll. 2d at 53. “The trial

judge has the opportunity

to wei gh such-6- f actors as the d efendant’s cred ibil ity, demean

or, general m

oral ch arac ter, men t alit y, social env ironm ent, habi ts, and age. [Ci

tations.] Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e r ev

i ewi n g c our t m us t n ot s ub sti

tute i ts j udg men t f or that of the trial

co ur t merely

because i

t wo uld hav

e weighed these factors dif

feren tly . [Citation.]” Stacey , 193 Il l . 2d at 20 9. Up on re v i ewi n g th e rec ord, wef

i nd tha t the tri al cou rt di d n ot abuse it s discr et ion in sent encing de f en da n t to 24 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. The record shows that t he trial cou rt c on si dere d th e a pp rop riate f actors in aggr avat ion and mitigat ion. At t he r ese nt encing he ar ing, t he trial judg e st at ed t hat he co ns id ere d the p res en ten cei nv es ti ga ti on rep orts, arg

um en ts of cou n se l , a n d d ef en da n t’s sta tem en t. The court fou nd no st at ut or y mi

t igat ing fact or s and t hre e st at ut or y aggr avat ing factors: (1) that defendan

t’s conduct threatened serious h arm, (2) that defend ant had

a h i story of pri ordel in quency , and (3) that t he sen

tence
was ne ces sary

to deter others

fro m committ ing t he sa me crime. The courtfo un d t ha t it was l

ike ly defen dant would com

mi t sim il ar off enses in the future, based

o n his mult iple inc ide nt r ep o r t s w hile b ein g h eld i n the j uve ni l e deten tion f aci l i ty. It i s c l ea r f rom the rem arks of t he t r ial ju dg e t ha t he did no t r ely
on the im proper factor t hat the shooting occurred in a school . Rather, t he court conc l

uded that the na ture and circum

stances of the o ff

ense warranted a se nt ence at t he higher end of the 6-to-30- ye ar sent encing range. Speci fi

cally , the court noted t h at f

i ve sh ots w ere f i red i nto a crowd of people a s retali ation f or t hreats from

the vi ctim and wi t h to taldi sreg ard f

or th e p oten ti al h ar m to ot her s. T he court recogniz ed th at, h ad de f en da n t f ired a gun o ne t ime on sc hoo l gro unds wit h no bystanders, he wo uld have qual if ied as a Cl ass X fel on with a si x-y ear mi ni mum sentence . See 720 ILCS 5/24–1.2(b) (West 2004); 73 0 ILCS 5/5–8–1(a)(3) (West 20 04 ). Under the fac ts of this case, howe ver, defen dant shot at Po rter mul

tiple t imes, in t he mid dle o f a crowded ha

l l wa y f i l l ed wi th s tude nts , tea ch ers , an d other s ch

ool
o fficia ls wh ile sc ho o l wa s in s es sio n. He en da ng er ed no t o nly Port er but also in

nocent bystanders. Defend ant contends that the 2 4-yea rse nt en ce did no t pr o pe r ly take i nto ac cou

n t hi s age at the tim

e of the off

ense, h is tumul tuo us background, o rhis po t ent ial for r ehabilitat ion. The record shows that t he tri al cou rt di d c ons i de r th e m

i ti ga ti ng ev i de nc e. M oreov

er, “ [a ] defendant’s rehabi

li tative poten ti al

*** is not entitled to greater1 We note that defendant has filed a motion to strike certa in stat eme nts in the St at e’s r eply br ief refer ring t o d efe ndant ’s condu ct s ubs equent to t he resent encing

heari ng. Beca use of our dispos itionin this ca se, t here is no need to c onsid er th e c on tested materi al. Defe

nd ant’ s m oti on is d en ied as m oo t.
-7- weight t han t he seri ousness of the off ense.” People

v. Coleman , 166 Il l . 2d 247 , 261 (1 995). Th e se n ten ci n g j udge adeq ua tel y con si dere d th e a pp rop riate factors, an d it is no t o ur du t y t o r ew eig h t he fac t o r s inv o lve d in his sent encing d ec is ion. The app ellate co ur t , ho weve r, re weighe d t he sent enc i ng fac t o r s, o ve r emp ha siz ing t he mit iga t ing fac t o r s w hile mini mizing aggravatin

g factors. The court found that t he tri al court “f ai le d to giv e due c onsi der at ion t o Alexa nder ’s so cial back gr ou nd and fac t s e vid en cin g h is r eh ab ilit at ive po t en t ial, inc lu din g t he impro vement in

hi s conduct whi

le in detention.” No. 3–08

– 0373 (unpub li shed ord er under Supr eme Court Rule 23). The cour t also he ld that the tria l court“gave undu e we ight t o fa ct or s in agg ra vat ion, in cludi ng the im pro per facto r that the offense o cc ur r ed in

a school .” No. 3–08–

0373 ( unp ubl i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). The appel la te court substi

tut ed i ts own judg ment for that of the trial courtbecause

i t would ha

ve wei ghed the f

actors diff

erently –an i m prop er exe

rci se of t he powers of a reviewi

ng court. See People v. Streit, 142 Il

l . 2d 13, 1 9 (199 1). We find tha t t he se nt ence impose d o n defend ant by the tria l court
was not “ gre atl y at vari an cewi th th e s pi ri t an d pu rpos e of the l aw , or man ifes t ly

dis propo rtionate to the nature of the off ense.” See

Stacey , 193 I ll. 2 d a t 21 0. Ac co r din gly, we ho ld th at the tri

al cou rt di d n ot abuse i ts di scre tion i n i m posi ng a 24-y ear s en tenc e on def

endan t.

CONCLUSION For th e f ore goi n g r ea son

s, we re v er se th e j udgm

en t of th e appella te court and rei

nstate defen

dant’s 24-y

ear sentence

. 1

Appel late court judgm ent r

everse d; circuit court judgment affirmed

.