2023 IL App (4th) 220346-U 

NO. 4-22-0346 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHA ROY GORDON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Peoria County 

No. 21CF533 

Honorable 

John P. Vespa, 

Judge Presiding.

 

 JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.

 Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Defendant’s 50-year prison sentence for first degree murder was not excessive.

¶ 2 In August 2021, a grand jury indicted defendant, Micha Roy Gordon, with two 

counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2020)). After a January 2022 

trial, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. At an April 13, 2022, hearing, 

the Peoria County circuit court denied defendant’s posttrial motion and sentenced him to a single 

prison term of 50 years. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the 

court denied.

¶ 3 Defendant appeals, asserting his 50-year sentence was excessive because the trial 

court failed to adequately consider his remorse and other mitigating evidence reflective of his 

rehabilitative potential. We affirm. 

FILED

May 9, 2023

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

NOTICE

This Order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 
- 2 -

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Count I of the August 31, 2021, indictment asserted defendant, without legal 

justification, knowingly struck Rolando Westbrook with a knife knowing said act created a 

strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Westbrook, causing Westbrook’s death. See 

720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2020). Count II asserted defendant, without lawful justification and 

with the intent to kill Westbrook, struck Westbrook with a knife, thereby causing Westbrook’s 

death. See 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2020).

¶ 6 On January 18, 2022, the trial court commenced defendant’s jury trial. The State 

presented the testimony of the following witnesses: (1) Jadakiss Pickett, an eyewitness; 

(2) Roger Pickett, Jadakiss’s brother and Westbrook’s friend; (3) Juanasia Fuller, a friend of 

Jadakiss and Roger; (4) Dr. Amanda Youmans, the forensic pathologist who performed 

Westbrook’s autopsy; (5) William England, a Peoria police sergeant; (6) Jenna Long, a Peoria 

police officer; (7) Zachary Jackson, a Peoria police officer; (8) Gerald Suelter, a Peoria police 

officer; (9) Clint Rezac, a Peoria police detective; (10) Roberto Vasquez, a Peoria police 

detective; (11) Scott Bowers, a Peoria police officer; (12) John Briggs, a Peoria police officer; 

and (13) Clay Blum, a Peoria police officer. The State also presented numerous photographs and 

surveillance videos.

¶ 7 Defendant testified on his own behalf and presented two stipulations. The first 

stipulation was defendant received medical care on August 24, 2021, and medical personnel 

observed a three-centimeter stab wound to his left arm, a skin tear to his left pinky, and “a small 

healed cut to the right side of his head.” The second stipulation addressed Westbrook’s 

convictions and noted he had two misdemeanor battery convictions in 2009 and one in 2020. 

Westbrook also had two felony domestic battery convictions in 2010 and two misdemeanor 
- 3 -

domestic battery convictions in 2020. The evidence relevant to the issue on appeal follows.

¶ 8 Around 3 a.m. on August 24, 2021, Jadakiss, Roger, Fuller, Westbrook, and a 

couple of other people were drinking and partying at Taft Homes in Peoria, Illinois. A separate 

group of people were also partying and drinking nearby. One of the men in the other group was 

wearing all white and had a dog with him. Roger identified defendant in the courtroom as the 

man who was wearing all white that night.

¶ 9 At some point, Jadakiss and Fuller left to sit in a vehicle, and Roger was near that

vehicle. While they were there, Jadakiss and Fuller observed an altercation between Westbrook 

and defendant. Jadakiss recorded some of the altercation with her cellphone camera. A man in a 

red shirt was standing in between Westbrook and defendant preventing them from physically 

touching. Neither woman saw physical contact between defendant and Westbrook, but Jadakiss 

testified she saw defendant try to swing at Westbrook. Both Jadakiss and Fuller saw something 

in defendant’s hand but could not identify what it was. Jadakiss denied telling the police it was a 

boxcutter in defendant’s hand. Fuller testified Westbrook did not have a weapon. Jadakiss 

testified she heard Westbrook say he did not want to fight. The last words Jadakiss heard 

Westbrook say were “leave me alone.” After the altercation ended, Westbrook left and started 

walking up the sidewalk that led out of Taft Homes. Defendant walked in the same direction as 

Westbrook. Fuller testified defendant continued to walk behind Westbrook until he was out of 

her eyesight. 

¶ 10 Later, the group learned Westbrook had been killed, and Jadakiss, Roger, and 

Fuller went to Jefferson Street. They observed Westbrook’s body lying in the street, and the 

police were present. Jadakiss showed the police the video she had of a portion of the altercation 

between defendant and Westbrook. Jadakiss tried to e-mail the video to the police, but she was 
- 4 -

unsuccessful. Jadakiss deleted the video from her cellphone, and the police were unable to 

recover it.

¶ 11 Sergeant England testified he was dispatched to the 700 block of Jefferson Street 

at 3:57 a.m. and was the first officer on the scene. When he arrived, Sergeant England observed 

a man lying in a pool of blood in the street near Warren Danz’s law office. Sergeant England 

determined the man was deceased. While on the scene, he spoke with Jadakiss, who had a video 

on her cellphone. Both he and Officer Long watched the video, but they were unsuccessful in 

obtaining it from Jadakiss. Sergeant England also searched the area of the scene for a weapon 

and a blood trail but did not find either.

¶ 12 Officer Long testified she recognized the deceased man in the video played by 

Jadakiss. The video showed two males fighting at Taft Homes and a third man trying to 

“deescalate the situation.” Officer Long observed a shiny gray object in the hand of the man 

wearing white and having a dog. The man in white also made a movement towards the victim. 

Additionally, Officer Long testified Jadakiss told her the man in white had a knife or a box cutter 

and that man followed the victim out of Taft Homes.

¶ 13 Detective Vasquez testified he examined Westbrook’s body at the scene with the 

coroner and they found no weapons of any type on Westbrook’s body. He also had officers 

gather surveillance videos from Taft Homes, Danz’s law office, and buildings between those two 

locations. None of the surveillance videos recorded the actual stabbing. However, the State 

played portions of the surveillance videos for the jury. One video showed Westbrook running 

away from defendant as he left Taft Homes and crossed Adams Street. The video from Miracle 

Revival Church showed defendant pursuing Westbrook, and the video from Warren Danz’s 

office showed defendant and his dog cross Jefferson Street and walk away from the area.
- 5 -

¶ 14 Detective Vasquez also testified that, later in the day on August 24, 2021, the 

police executed a search warrant of defendant’s residence. The police also transported defendant 

to the hospital because he was injured. After defendant was treated, he went to the police station 

where Detective Vasquez along with Detective Rezac interviewed him. During the interview, 

defendant said he was having a few beers at Taft Homes by himself. As he was leaving, a man

he had never seen before came up to him and tried to rob him. Defendant continued his walk, 

and the man ran up behind defendant and pushed him. When defendant turned around, the man 

hit him, cut him, and stabbed him. Defendant got the man’s knife, and the man threatened to 

shoot defendant. Defendant believed the man, who weighed 100 pounds more than him, was 

going to kill him. When the man tackled defendant on Jefferson Street, he used the man’s knife 

to defend himself.

¶ 15 Also, on August 24, 2021, Dr. Youmans conducted an autopsy of Westbrook. At 

the time of his death, Westbrook was 37 years old, weighed 228 pounds, and was 5 feet, 8 inches 

tall. Defendant had suffered numerous injuries. He had cuts on his hands, upper chest, and 

thigh, and his cheek was bruised. Abrasions were located on his forehead, face, hands, side, and 

left knee. Westbrook also had stab wounds on his lower back, face, neck, and upper chest. The 

stab to Westbrook’s neck caused injury to Westbrook’s larynx, thyroid gland, and right jugular 

vein, which caused substantial bleeding. Dr. Youmans opined the stab wound to the neck was 

the fatal wound. She also testified the cuts and abrasions on Westbrook’s hands were consistent 

with defensive-type wounds. Additionally, Dr. Youmans testified that, at the time of death, 

Westbrook’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.204 and he had marijuana in his system.

¶ 16 Defendant testified he was 55 years old, weighed 166 pounds, and was 6 feet, 4 

inches tall at the time of the incident. Defendant had walked to Taft Homes with his dog and 
- 6 -

drank three beers. He denied bringing a knife with him. While defendant sat with his dog, 

Westbrook, whom defendant had never seen before, exchanged words about the dog, and 

defendant moved further away from Westbrook. Another man gave defendant a fifth of tequila, 

from which Westbrook took a drink without defendant’s permission. Defendant then let 

Westbrook have the rest of the tequila and walked away from Westbrook. Defendant estimated 

Westbrook drank three-fourths of the fifth of tequila.

¶ 17 As defendant began walking towards the entrance of Taft Homes, he heard the 

tequila bottle “go down” and said, “[H]e cut his hand.” Westbrook jumped up with both of his 

fists down and said the following: “You think I won’t put both of my hands on you and your dog 

and make you break yourself and take everything you got.” Defendant continued to walk up the 

sidewalk with his back to Westbrook. Defendant got pushed, and when he turned around, 

Westbrook hit him. Westbrook hit defendant a second time and tackled him to the ground. The 

pair then tussled on the ground. When defendant maneuvered Westbrook over, they both looked 

around, and defendant noticed he was bleeding from his head and arm. Westbrook had stabbed 

and cut defendant but lost the knife. Defendant got to his feet with Westbrook’s knife and tried 

to make his way to the entrance. Westbrook did not know defendant had his knife and said the 

following to defendant: “I’ll blow your mother f*** head off. You’re gonna give me what I 

said. You gonna do this. You gonna kill me, you go ahead.” They again swung at each other. 

As defendant made his way to the entrance of Taft Homes, Westbrook kept running up to him, 

and they would swing at each other, which continued all the way to Danz’s office. Defendant 

explained they were face to face because Westbrook was jogging backwards. Westbrook was 

also making threatening statements and suggesting he had a gun. Defendant admitted that, when 

he and Westbrook were near the church, they could have both gone in different directions but 
- 7 -

neither one wanted to do so.

¶ 18 At Danz’s office, they were swinging at each other when Westbrook charged 

defendant taking them both to the ground. Westbrook swung at defendant and defendant swung 

at Westbrook with Westbrook’s knife. When Westbrook finally retreated, defendant jumped to 

his feet. Westbrook then walked away, and defendant left. Defendant did not know the extent of 

Westbrook’s injuries. He did not call the police when he arrived home.

¶ 19 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree 

murder. Defendant filed a posttrial motion. On April 13, 2022, the trial court held a joint 

hearing on defendant’s posttrial motion and sentencing. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the 

court denied defendant’s posttrial motion. As to sentencing, the State presented the presentence 

investigation report (PSI) and the testimony of Detectives Robert Allen and John Rodgers. 

Additionally, Amy Funches, Westbrook’s mother, read her victim impact statement to the court. 

Defendant made a statement in allocution and presented the testimony of (1) Steven Johnson, his 

uncle, and (2) Diane Knox-Fleming, his cousin. The court also reviewed the surveillance videos 

from defendant’s trial.

¶ 20 Detective Allen testified he investigated an August 11, 2021, assault and battery 

of Donovan Watson at Taft Homes. Watson was unconscious when the police arrived and was 

transported to the hospital. At the hospital, Watson told Detective Allen he had been in an 

altercation with defendant near a liquor store, and defendant chased him through Taft Homes. 

There, defendant assaulted Watson and left him unconscious. Watson identified defendant as the 

perpetrator in a photographic array. Detective Allen collected surveillance videos from Taft 

Homes, which showed Watson falling to the ground. While Watson was on the ground 

motionless, defendant stomped on Watson’s head twice. When Detective Allen interviewed 
- 8 -

defendant, he said Watson had inhaled nitrous containers and thrown bricks and a 2x4 at him. 

Defendant also told Detective Allen that Watson had exposed himself to defendant and made 

statements about having sexual intercourse with defendant. Defendant stated Watson’s conduct 

upset him. Defendant felt Watson had not learned his lesson yet, so defendant was going to beat 

his “a***.”

¶ 21 Detective Rodgers testified about an April 2021 incident. According to Detective 

Rodgers, a gas station employee told the police a man came into the gas station and was trying to 

return a knife. An argument ensued and the man said some racial slurs to the employee, who 

then told the man to leave. The man continued to argue and called the employee out from behind 

the counter. The employee came out from behind the counter, and the man pulled a gun. After 

threatening the employee, the man shoved the employee, pointed the gun at him, and left the 

store. The employee recognized the man by his face but did not know his name. The man was 

wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses at the time of the incident. The police obtained a 

surveillance video of the incident, and the police recognized defendant as the man who 

threatened the employee. The employee also identified defendant as the man in a photographic 

lineup. The State played surveillance videos of both incidents for the trial court.

¶ 22 Funches considered defendant a close family member and noted the violent 

manner in which her son died. She noted how much pain losing Westbrook caused her family 

and questioned why defendant had not shown any remorse.

¶ 23 Johnson testified he had frequent contact with defendant over the years and 

described him as a strong family man. Johnson’s parents had 12 children, and those children had 

many children. They were a big close-knit family that took care of each other. Defendant was 

always there to help and protect his family members. Johnson was very shocked to hear what 
- 9 -

happened because it was not the person Johnson knew. Johnson’s family did not tolerate gun 

violence. However, he admitted defendant was the type of person who would not back down or 

run from something. Defendant would always defend himself.

¶ 24 Knox-Fleming had also been around defendant since his birth. Knox-Fleming 

described defendant as a sensitive and caring member of the family and sought leniency from the 

trial court. Additionally, she explained how proud and happy defendant had been to get a new 

job three days before the incident. Like Johnson, Knox-Fleming noted defendant was not one to 

walk away from a challenge and he was often challenged due to his big size.

¶ 25 Defendant made a statement in allocution. He acknowledged he knew 

Westbrook’s mother and uncles but denied knowing Westbrook. Defendant again stated 

Westbrook was the aggressor and he did not set out to do anything to anybody. He insisted he 

was just trying to defend himself and tried to distance himself from Westbrook three times. 

Defendant was sorry for what happened and sorry he and Westbrook crossed paths. Defendant 

apologized to Westbrook’s family.

¶ 26 The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years’ imprisonment. The court noted 

defendant received glowing testimonials and it believed defendant’s witnesses. However, it 

believed something else was going on and found defendant had “a temper that just blows,” which 

a person has to be able to rein in. The court noted defendant’s claim Westbrook was following 

him was a lie. It further explained defendant had many opportunities to stop pursuing Westbrook 

and continued to pursue him for two to three blocks. We note the written sentencing judgment 

gave the statutory citation for knowing first degree murder, which was not the most serious form 

of murder charged. 

¶ 27 On April 14, 2022, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, arguing 
- 10 -

the trial court’s sentence was excessive and amounted to a de facto life sentence.. He argued the 

court placed too much emphasis on the aggravating evidence of the other incident at Taft Homes 

and the aggravating factors of defendant’s criminal history and the need to deter others from 

committing the same crime. Defendant also asserted the court should not have considered the 

evidence related to the April 2021 incident. Additionally, defendant alleged the court failed to 

consider or give sufficient weight to the following:

“(i) Defendant’s statement of allocution, which included repeated apologies to the 

victim’s family, (ii) letters and testimony about his character, (iii) work history, 

(iv) family support, (v) the Defendant’s age, which makes the sentence a 

near-certain life sentence, and (vi) all other arguments raised by Defendant and 

his counsel on his behalf during his sentencing hearing.” 

Defendant further alleged the court erred by finding his rehabilitative potential was poor. The 

court held the hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence on April 18, 2022. After 

hearing the parties’ arguments, the court denied the motion to reconsider. The court explained 

that, even if it sentenced defendant to the minimum statutory sentence, it was still a life sentence 

given defendant’s age. The court also stated the defense noted defendant apologized repeatedly. 

However, the court noted the apologies were insufficiently specific. Additionally, the court 

found defendant did not have good rehabilitative potential and noted defendant stomped on the 

victim of the other Taft Homes incident after the victim had been lying on the ground.

¶ 28 On April 22, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in sufficient 

compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Mar. 12, 2021). Accordingly, this court 

has jurisdiction of defendant’s appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). 

¶ 29 II. ANALYSIS
- 11 -

¶ 30 Defendant asks this court to reduce his sentence or, in the alternative, vacate his 

sentence and remand the cause for a new sentencing hearing because his 50-year sentence for 

first degree murder is excessive. The State disagrees and also asserts this court should not 

consider the material outside the record that defendant cites on appeal.

¶ 31 The Illinois Constitution mandates “[a]ll penalties shall be determined both 

according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to 

useful citizenship.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11. In sentencing a defendant, the circuit court 

must consider a number of statutory aggravating and mitigating factors. See 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1, 

5-5- 3.2 (West 2020). However, “the seriousness of an offense is considered the most important 

factor in determining a sentence.” People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 53, 23 N.E.3d 

430. 

¶ 32 With excessive sentence claims, this court has explained appellate review of a 

defendant’s sentence as follows:

“A trial court’s sentencing determination must be based on the particular 

circumstances of each case, including factors such as the defendant’s credibility, 

demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and 

age. [Citations.] Generally, the trial court is in a better position than a court of 

review to determine an appropriate sentence based upon the particular facts and 

circumstances of each individual case. [Citation.] Thus, the trial court is the 

proper forum for the determination of a defendant’s sentence, and the trial court’s 

decisions in regard to sentencing are entitled to great deference and weight. 

[Citation.] Absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court, a sentence may not be 

altered upon review. [Citation.] If the sentence imposed is within the statutory 
- 12 -

range, it will not be deemed excessive unless it is greatly at variance with the 

spirit and purpose of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the 

offense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Price, 2011 IL App (4th) 

100311, ¶ 36, 958 N.E.2d 341; see also People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 212, 

940 N.E.2d 1062, 1066 (2010).

The sentencing range for first degree murder is 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment (730 ILCS 

5/5-4.5-20(a)(1) (West 2020)). Thus, defendant’s 50-year prison sentence was within the proper 

statutory range.

¶ 33 A. Scholarly Articles Outside the Record

¶ 34 In support of his argument his sentence is excessive, defendant cites several 

articles from various journals. Thus, we begin our analysis by addressing the State’s argument 

we should disregard those articles in addressing defendant’s excessive sentence claim. 

Defendant disagrees with the State, contending the refusal to consider such information stands in 

opposition to several Illinois Supreme Court and other court decisions. 

¶ 35 In this case, the trial court found defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation were 

poor given he had three violent episodes within a year. In his appellant brief, defendant argues 

the trial court failed to adequately consider the mitigating evidence reflective of defendant’s 

rehabilitative potential. Defendant notes the PSI stated defendant was homeless but had a job 

and was in the process of getting a new job. He then cites a law review article that such actions

are indicative of defendant’s rehabilitative potential. Defendant further argues the PSI shows 

defendant had never been diagnosed with any mental health conditions and cites several articles 

in support of his contention the proper treatment of anger management issues increases the 

likelihood of rehabilitation and decreases the risk of reoffending.
- 13 -

¶ 36 The State notes the trial court never admitted the articles cited by defendant, the 

articles were not provided by defendant in the appellate record, and they appear to be written by 

advocacy groups. A review of defense counsel’s comments at sentencing indicates counsel 

raised neither of the aforementioned arguments regarding rehabilitative potential in the trial court 

but instead focused on defendant’s good character. As such, defendant is presenting evidence 

via the articles not considered by the trial court but which is aimed at impeaching the trial court’s 

factual determination regarding defendant’s rehabilitative potential. This court has found such 

materials are not appropriate for our consideration and declined to give them any weight. In re

R.M., 2022 IL App (4th) 210426, ¶ 46, 198 N.E.3d 677. 

¶ 37 The facts before us are distinguishable from People v. Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d 

107, 816 N.E.2d 322 (2004), cited by defendant. There, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed 

whether the sentencing provision as applied to the defendant violated the proportionate penalties 

clause because it was “cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed 

as to shock the moral sense of the community.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Huddleston, 

212 Ill. 2d at 132, 816 N.E.2d at 337. In analyzing the issue, the supreme court cited numerous 

articles. See Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d at 134-35, 816 N.E.2d at 338. However, in analyzing the 

claim of a proportionate penalties clause violation, the supreme court gave no deference to the 

trial court’s determination of that claim (Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d at 129, 816 N.E.2d at 335), and

the issue required the supreme court to examine the general consensus on matters related to sex 

crimes against children. Moreover, our review of the appellate court cases from other districts 

cited by defendant does not persuade us to depart from our decision in R.M.

¶ 38 Accordingly, we will disregard the articles cited by defendant and the arguments 

based on those arguments that were not raised in the trial court. 
- 14 -

¶ 39 B. Excessive Sentence

¶ 40 Defendant contends the trial court failed to (1) adequately account for (a) his 

remorse and (b) the mitigating evidence indicative of his rehabilitative potential and 

(2) appropriately balance rehabilitation and retribution with the objective of restoring defendant 

to useful citizenship. The State contends defendant forfeited portions of his argument for failing 

to raise them in the trial court.

¶ 41 Defendant contends he expressed deep remorse for killing Westbrook and the trial 

court discounted that remorse because defendant did not admit he was guilty of first degree 

murder. Defendant relies on the court’s comments at the hearing on the motion to reconsider his 

sentence. We do not find his contention forfeited. When the court was discussing defendant’s 

apologies at the hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence, the court stated it 

understood why a defendant would not admit guilt in a statement of allocution and it was 

defendant’s choice to make a general apology. The record contains no evidence the court 

punished defendant for not admitting his guilt. The court was merely explaining it did not give 

defendant’s apologies a great deal of weight because they were general. We disagree with 

defendant’s contention the trial court failed to adequately consider defendant’s remorse and 

punished him for not admitting his guilt.

¶ 42 Defendant next contends significant mitigating evidence of his rehabilitative 

potential was presented at the sentencing hearing. As previously found herein, defendant’s 

arguments related to his homelessness and lack of anger management treatment that were 

supported by scholarly articles outside the record were forfeited. Defendant also argues the 

evidence of his strong family ties is indicative of rehabilitative potential. In this case, the trial 

court had to balance the evidence of defendant’s family ties and good character with that of 
- 15 -

defendant’s lengthy criminal history and his violent actions on more than one occasion. 

Defendant’s argument essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence, which is not the role of this 

court. Defendant’s first criminal conviction was in 1983, and the last conviction before the first 

degree murder charge was in 2016. He had a total of 10 misdemeanors and 3 felonies. The PSI

does not reveal the underlying facts of those convictions, but we disagree with defendant that we 

can infer none of the convictions were a crime of violence. Regardless, defendant’s criminal 

history spanning several decades and committing numerous crimes does not support a claim he 

had rehabilitative potential. Moreover, the State’s evidence of the two recent violent incidents 

also cuts against rehabilitative potential. Accordingly, we disagree with defendant he had 

significant rehabilitative potential. Additionally, we agree with the trial court any sentence it 

gave defendant was essentially a life sentence given defendant’s age of 56. Thus, that fact alone 

is not a basis for a lesser sentence. Given the violent nature of the crime and the fact video 

evidence suggests the crime could have been easily avoided, we find the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion in sentencing defendant to 50 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 43 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 44 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Peoria County circuit court’s judgment. 

¶ 45 Affirmed.