## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

People v . Powell , 2013 IL App (1st) 111654

Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPL E OF THE STATE OF I L L I NOI S, Plaintiff-Appe l lee, v. TYRONE POWEL L , Def endant- Appellant.

District & N o. First District, Third Division Docke t No. 1-11-1654

Filed J uly 17, 2013

Held (Note : Thi s syl lab us

con s t it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed b y the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) Def endant’ s conviction for the first degree murder of his wife for having

an aff air and his sentenc e to 56 year s, incl u d i n g the mandatory 25-year firea rm enhanc ement, wer e upheld over his contention that the trial court failed to prope rly

consider mitig atingfac tors.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Circuit Court of Cook County
, No. 08-CR-19 7 4 1 ; the Hon. J oseph M. Claps, J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Affir med.Counsel on

Appea l Michae l J

. Pelletie r an d Alison L .S. Shah, both of State Appellate Def ender ’s Off

ice, of Chicag o, for a

ppellant.

Anita M. Alvare z, S tate’s Attorne y , of C hicag o (Ka thleen W arnic k and Kather ine Kaminski, Assistant State’s Attorney s, of counsel), for the People.

Panel J USTI CE HYMAN de livered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion. Presidi n g J ustice Neville and J ustice Pierce concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Def

endant Ty rone Powe ll was convicte d of first degree murder of his wife followinga jury trial and sentenced to 56 y ear s in prison, which included a 25-year mandatory firea

rm enhanc ement. On ap p eal, Powell seeks to have the sentenc e reduc ed to the mandatory minimum of 45 y ear s, contending that the trial court failed to consider cer tain mitigating fac tors. Contrary to defe ndant’s asser tion, the trial court in imposing sentenc e for first degree murder did consider the evidenc e in mitigation, including whether : (i) the circ umstances of the offe nse wer e unlikely to reoc cur, (i i ) defe ndant showed remorse , (iii) defe ndant had improved his life over the past 10 y ear s, and (iv) defe ndant acte d under strong provocation and there wer e substantial g rounds to excuse or justify his conduct. We aff irm the sentenc e.

¶ 2 Ba ckground ¶ 3 The evidenc e reve aled that 44-year -old Powell shot and killed his wife, Veltann Wil kins,

near 82nd and Gre en S t re et , Chicag o, close to their home at 8142 South Peoria, on the afte rnoon of September 22, 2008. Powell testified t hat he believed Wi lkins was having an aff air a nd fea red that Wi lkins’s boy friend, A lbert Hudson, wa s comingto kill hi m. ¶ 4 At trial, the S tate play ed a portion of a ph o ne call that Wil kins made to a 911 operator

on September 22, 2008, at 12:57 p.m. On that call, Wil kins asked for police to come to 8142 South Peoria and said her husband “just now tried to drag [her] back in the house,” and was “g etting in his car , he’s in a Dodg e Charg er.” Wil kins also told the operator, “He re he comes, here he come , he fittingto come g et me.” ¶ 5 Bobby Wil lis, who lived upstairs from Powell and Wilkins, testi fied that a littl e befor e 1 p.m. on September 22, he hear d a woman’s scre ams coming from the front of the building. L ooking down from his balcony
, he saw Powell on top of Wil kins, punching her, as Wil kins tried to move awa

y

. Wil kins then ran acr oss the street as Powell “p eeled off” in his car

. Bobby hear d gunshots and later saw Wil kins at 82nd and Gre en Street, lying on the curb and bleeding

.

-2-¶ 6 Fa ithe J ordan testified that shortly befor e 1 p.m., she was driving on 82nd Street on her

way to school. J ordan saw a woman ru n n i n g d o wn the street who was hy sterica l and

scre aming and asked J ordan for help, but J ordan kept driving beca use she thought the woman

wa s “hallucina

ting.” Soon afte r, J ordan heard a gunshot and drove back to wher e s h e fi rs t

saw the woman. J ordan saw a Charg er with its car door open, and then hear d t wo more gunshots. When J ordan rea ched 82nd and Gre en Street, s h e s aw a woman on the g rass, bleeding , and the Char g er on the sidewalk. ¶ 7 L ouis Thompson testified that, shortly befor e 1 p.m., he was home at 8200 South Green Street when he hear d two “pop” sounds and a woman’s scre ams. He looked out the window and saw a man exiti nga Charg er he rec og nized from the neighborhood. The man talked to

a woman who was standing in the street and shot her. After standing over the fallen woman and shooting her four to six more times, the man returne d to his car and beg an to drive awa y

. Thompson called 911, a

nd an ambulanc e ar

rived shortly

afte rwa rds. ¶ 8 Another witness, Fr ed Har vey , who was working at the g as station at 82nd and Ha lsted, testified t hat he saw a woman running down the s tree t scre aming as she was b ei n g ch ased by a man holding a gun. Har vey ran towa rd the woman and called for the m an to stop, but the man shot the woman from about 30 to 50 y ards behind her. After the woman fell to the
g round around 82nd and Gre en, the man walked up to the woman, shot her twice more in the back, and walked awa

y

. A few hours l ater , Har

vey found a cell phone on the s tree t, which he g ave to the police

. ¶ 9 Offic er J ohn Smit h testified that shortly befor e 1 p.m., he was called to the intersec tion of 82nd and Gre en Street along with other office rs. Offic er Smit h and his partne r approa ched a C harg er, where he observed P owell p o i n t a gun under his head. Office r S mith y elled for Powell to drop the gun, but Powell pulled the trig g er. When the gun d i d n o t fi re, Powell pulled back on the gun’s slide to chambe r another round and pulled the trig g er a second time, shooting himself under his chin. The Charg er then rolled over a stop sign befor e coming to rest. When the police approa ched the Charg er ag ain, Powell asked for the office rs to kill him. Offic ers r ecove red a

gun from the Char g er’ s passeng er se at. ¶ 10 The victim’s son, Kenne th Wil liams, hear d Powell and Wil kins arguing at 12:20 or 12:30
p.m.. He left the building befor e 1 p.m. that day

. Around Septemb er 24, Kenne th found a letter torn in piece s in a tissue box i n P o we l l and Wil kins’s bedroom. Wit h his upstairs neig hbo rs , Wil liams piece d the letter toge ther and identified the letter’s handwr iting as belong ing to Powell. Willi ams’ upstairs ne ighbor s g ave the letter to the police

. ¶ 11 The State pres en t ed an ex ce rp t o f the torn, undated letter, which was addre ssed “To Whom i t May

Concern” and sig ned by

Powell:
“As for that low down bitch I call my wife, this i s the last time she will ever hur t me. I ref use to let that bitch continue to threaten me, to treat me like shit. There fore I ’ve decide d to kill t hat bitch and then I will procee d to take my

own life.” The sear ch also rec overe d about 40 items of Wil kins’s clothing t h at had been cut and shredde d and a photograph that had bee n ripped into two piece s. ¶ 12 The State pre sented e vidence that Wil kins sustained blunt trauma injuries and gunshot wounds. The blunt trauma injuries included a small bruise by her rig ht eyelid, a small injury

-3-and abra sion on the under surfa ce of her chin, and abra sions around her left elbow, the back

of her left hand, and o n her right knee. W ilkins’s gunshot wounds wer e located on the t op of her head, above her left ear , and on the outer surfa ce of her arm. A third gunshot enter ed
t h e left side of her chest. An autopsy reve aled that Wil kins died as a result of m u l t i p l e gunshot wounds. ¶ 13 Powell testified that he and Wil kins met in 2001 and marrie d nine months later. Wilkins and her three children lived with Powe ll, a nd he and Wil kins a lso had a child of their own. Powell was the primary income-e arne r. Problems arose in the marria g e, stemming in part from discipline issues with Wil kins’s ch i l d re n and Powell’s suspicions that Wil kins was stealing money fr o m h i m

. In 2005, afte r Powell noticed that money was missing from his bank ac count, he lef

t home for a

bout seven or eight months, but the couple r econc iled and participated in marria g e counseling

. In May 2008, Powell beg an to suspect that Wil kins was having an aff

air beca use she would spend three or four hours on what should have been brief

err ands. In J uly 2008, Powell and Wil kins argued about the phone bill, which was normally $69, but totaled $400 that month. The bil l reve aled that about 200 t ext m essag es had been exchang ed betwee n Wil kins and another number, and many calls had been made to that same number. When Powell called the n u m b er and asked the man who answe red why he was calling Wil kins, the man responde d that Wil kins was just a friend he had met throug h her cousin. Also in J uly 2008, Powell was leaving a store when a small and seeming ly unarme d

man announce d a stick-up, and the two men beg an to f ight. Powell r an to his car , wher e he noticed he ha d blood on his shirt and a slash on the side of his fa ce. ¶ 14 Despite changi n g p h one companies, on September 18, 2008, Powell rec eived a nother phone bill that listed the same number that had been on the J u ly phone bill. Powell and Wil kins met in a park to discuss the matter, and when Powell called the number, the man told Powell he was a g ener al for the Bla ck P Stone Rang ers street g ang , had “numer ous guy s in h i s secur ity detail,” and could have “this and thi s and thi s and thi s done to [hi m]

. ” P o we l l beca me conce rned and felt his life wa s i n dang er beca use the man knew wher e Powell worke d and spent his f

ree time. I

nitially
, Powell te stified that at the time of his July attack, he thought the at tacke r was sent by the Bla ck Stone Rang ers, but on cross-e x amination admitted this wa s incorre ct beca use he did not lear

n of the connec tion be tween the man on the phone a

nd the stree t ga

nguntil the September phone c all. ¶ 15 At Powell a

nd Wil kins’s discussion at the park on September 18, Wil kins a ttempted to

rec oncile, but Powell said he was leaving their home. He drove around for about two hours, befor e returning h o m e, wher e Wil kins attempted to rec oncile ag ain. After an argument involving Wil kins’s daughter, Ashley Wil liams, Powell called the police to escor t Ashley off the pre mises. Wi lkins became angry , took the children, a nd left. ¶ 16 On S ep t em b er 20, in an effort to find his family and retrieve their son, Powell went to the police station and Wil kins’s mother’s house. When the police arr ived at t he mother’s house with paper s, a serg eant informed Powell that he could g o to jail if the contents of the
paper s wer e t ru e. When Powell returne d home, he wrote the letter that was found in the tissue box beca

use he w as upset that his wife ha d filed a f ake police repor

t. ¶ 17 On September 21, Powell and Wil kins spoke on the phone throug hout the course of the

-4-day
, discussing their marria g e. They arr ang ed for Powell to leave a dinner he prepa red so that Wil kins could fee d the children while Powell was not home. Powell also left a Sweetest Day

car d for Wil kins. When Powell returne d that evening
, he noticed Wil kins had forg otten the

car d, but she agree d to return to pick it up the next day

. ¶ 18 On September 22, Wil kins arr i v ed at t h e ap ar t m en t ar ound 8 a.m., and Powell and Wil kins proce eded to discuss thei r m arr iag e for about three or four hours. Around noon, Powell discovere d Wil kins was o n t h e p h o n e. Powell took the phone from her, and bega n speaking to the man at the other end, who told Powell “he was g oing to f*** her up and him and his guy s [were] on the way” to Powe ll’s house to kill him. Powell deter mined this wa s the man from t h e previous calls, who he identified as Albert Hudson. Powell and Hudson beg an to argue while Wil kins beg g ed Powell, “Please
, please don’t do that. Don’t do that.” After Powell hung up, Wil kins g rabbe d the pho n e and ran out the door, y elling for help. Be cause Hudson said he w as on the way
, Powell closed and locked the door and retrie ved

a gun. Fr om the porch, he saw Wil kins on a street corne r, talking on the phone and looking around, which s u ggest ed to Powell that she was waiting for Hudson. Powell g ot in his car and beg an to c hase Wil kins while she ran. When he caught up to he r, Powell e x ited the car and aske d Wil kins if she was wa iting for “him to do something to me.” When Wi lkins did
not answe r and ignor ed Powell’s demands to put down the phone, Powell s h o t h er

. Continui ng to hold the phone, Wil kins walked acr oss the sidewalk while Powell repe atedly instructed her to put down the phone. When Wil kins still ignor ed him, he shot Wil kins ag ain, and she fell on a pole. Powell beg an to drive awa y , but was met by police office rs who told him to exit his car

. To prompt the police to open fire, Powell lifted his gun, but noticed it was jammed. Once it was unjammed, he ag ain pointed the gun at the po l i ce, and then shot himself “without thinking about it.” Powell did not know Wilki ns had died or that she had been on the phone with 911. ¶ 19 Albert Hudson testified for the State in rebuttal. Hudson wor k e d in h ig h -rise ma intenance and denied being a member of a street g ang or af fi liated with the Bla ck P Stone Rang ers. Hudson and Wil kins met in 1983, and the two dated in high school and then stayed in touch throug hout the y ear s. Hudson and Wil kins fell out of touch around 2005, but rec onnecte d in 2008, and beg an to date. Hudson knew Wil kins was marrie d, albeit unhappily
, and believed she was in the proce ss of a divorce

. In the summe r o f 2008, Hudson rec eived a call from Powell, asking who Hudson was. Hudson did not rec all the details of that conver sation, but denied that he told Powell he was a B lack P Stone Rang er. ¶ 20 On S eptember 22, Hudson rec eived a phone call around 12:45 p.m. from P owell
, wh o said, “My wife beg g ed me not to call you.” After Hudson replied, “What do you want me to do? ”, there was a silence and the phone went dead. Hudson went to work, and around 5 p.m., he lea rned that Wi lkins was dead. ¶ 21 T h e t rial court denied Powell’s reque st for jury instructions perta ining to self-defen s e, provocation, belief in justificat ion, and involuntary manslaughter. The jury found Powell
guilty of first degree murder and that during the commission of th e offe nse, Powell
persona lly

discharg ed the f

irea rm that proxim ately

cause d death to anothe r per son. ¶ 22 A prese ntence investigation repor t (PSI ) reve al ed t h at b efore his arr est, Powell had

-5-worke d as a machine operator at World’s Finest Chocolate for two y ear s. Previously
, Powell

was employ ed as a kiln operator at Connelly GPM for five year s and a janitor for East L ake Deve lopment Man age ment Company for one year

. His highe st level of educa tion was eleve nth g rade

. Fr om 1980 to 1997, Powell was a g ener al in the Bla ck P Stone Nation street g ang

. His criminal history included a 1996 conviction for manufa cture /delivery of coca ine,

a 1993 conviction for possession of a controlled s ub s t ance with intent to deliver, a 1993 conviction for possession of a controlled subst ance , a 1990 conviction for unlawful use of

a wea pon, and a 1 9 84 char g e for possession of canna bis. Powell used heroin betwee n the
ag es of 22 and 27, and succe ssfully completed a drug and alcohol treatment program in 1992. He testified that he had not used heroin since. Powell repor ted that while incar cer ated for the murder, he was diagnosed with major depre ssion and an anx iety disorder and was taking
presc ription medication. He had attempted suicide twice–onc e in 1991 and o nce in 2008 afte r shooting his wife . The sec ond attempt cause d injuries to his hearingand eyesig ht. ¶ 23 At s entenc ing, the State prese nted victim impact statements from t wo o f W i l k i n s ’s children, Kenne th Wil liams and Ashley Wil liams, which both ref err ed to the emot i o nal difficulties that Powell and Wil kins’s son, Ty rone J unior, had experience d since the incident. In ag gravation, the State argued that Powell “esse ntially hunted d o wn Wil kins in broad daylight and shot her multipl e times on the street.” Wil kins was leaving him “and he decide d
to kill her.” The State rec ognized that Powell wa s a fo ur-time convicted felon and was a g ener al in the Bla ck P Stone Nation street g ang

. Powell did not express remorse , his testimony “wa s complete l y fabricated and completely self-se rving ,” and Powell had done nothing to rede em himself “for the brutal actio n s that he inflicted on Veltann.” The State
argued that based on the victim impact statements, Wil kins was the life, cente r, and lifeblood of the fa mily , and her

children had strug g led without her. The State contende d that Powell deser ved much more than the minimum sentence of 45 y ear s. ¶ 24 In mitigation, Powell a rgued that for the past 10 year s, he had been g ainfully employ ed and supported his family
, including his wife’ s children. The incident was unprec edente d

acc ording to Powell, who char acte rized his criminal history as old and mostly drug -re lated, rathe r than violent. As an adult, Powell ended his g ang membership, turned his life around, and took g ood car e o f h i s family

. Powell had “ce rtainly made g reat advanc es in terms of trying to be a pillar in his community .” In addition, Powell argued that he took responsibility for his actions and made the “ultimate show of remorse ” when he attempted suicide. Powell
soug ht the 45-year

minimumsentenc e, which w ould make him 89 y ear s old on relea se. ¶ 25 I n allocution, Powell beg an by noting that Ashley Wil liams
, W i l k i n s ’s d au gh t er , sabotag ed his relation s hip with Wil kins. Powell considere d himself a part of his wife’ s family
, but “found out they never liked me in the beg inning,” and had been helping Wil kins “cove r up what she was doing.” Powell “t ri ed t o be a rea l fathe r,” but his wife would not allow hi m to do so, having t au gh t t h ei r son to lie to him to cover up that she was with her boy friend. Powell stated his son was acting out in school long befor e the incident, noting that his son had been suspended from school 12 times in 2008 and had alway s had outbursts. In addition to chea

ting o n h i m , W i lkins stole money from P owell’s bank acc ount and forg ed his signatur e. Powell stated, “ Imean, it’s just a lot of stuff that build up, build up.” Powell said he never denied that he shot his wife, but he also went to work every day and worked

-6-long hour s to take of his son and his wife ’s childre n.

¶ 26 In addition
, P o we l l s t at ed t hat while “[all] of this stuff that’s happene d and it’s been happening for y ear s” did not start t hat day
, the incident itself happene d beca use of Albert Hudson. At the ti m e Powell shot Wil kins, he thought Wil kins was guiding Hudson to his location beca

use Hudson had just told him that he and his friend wer e coming to kill Powell and had told Powell he was “a prince of the Bla ck P Stone Rang ers.” Powell speculated that Hudson must have said that to scar e him, beca use when Powell saw Hudson, he did not look like a g ang member. When Powell was threatened on the phone and Wil kins told him to stop arguing, he had no rea son to believe Wil kins was running from him beca use they never had phy sically fought. Powell thought Wil kins was scar ed beca use the man had just made a threat

on the phone. Wil kins would not put down the phone, Powell was nervous, and he shot her. ¶ 27 Powell asked how he co u l d h av e s h o wn re morse, as he had not had contac t with Wil kins’s family since the incident. Powell also said he had a lot of remorse , and indicated that he had a tattoo inked on his arm that said “Rest in Peace
, Vel.” Powell was “ver y sorry that it happene d beca

use it didn’t have to. I shot her under false prete nses.” He acknow ledg ed that Wil kins had called 911 and said he was “sorr y that I did it.” Powell added he would like to say he wa s sorry

to his wife’s fa

mily , his family , and his son. ¶ 28 In announcingPowell’s sentenc e, the tria l court said:

“[I ’ve] considere d the fa ctors in a g gravation a nd mitigation, I ’ve considere d the nature of the off ense, I ’ve c onsidered your statement, the information that the State has put in the re cord, the information your attorne y s have put in the re cord ***.
I ’ve considere d not only the statements you’ve made today but your testimony
, which Irec all vividly

. Probably the most troubling thing about yo u r position *** is you think you wer e justified in doing what y ou’re doing–what you did to this victim.
Even if any part of your testimony in its wi l d es t evaluation is true, at some point,

acc ording to you, you are in your own home, locked in behi n d a d o o r wi t h a wea pon. That was what you said under oath. Now, I don’t believe for a second that’s true. But if it was, all you would have h ad t o [do] was stay there and you wouldn’t be standing in front of me and this woman wouldn’t hav e b ee n s h o t and killed. It wouldn’t have happene d. And this whole idea that this man that she was seeing
, who testified[,] who I saw, in
any body ’s wildest imag ination, that man is so far from a g ang member. I mean, it’s more likely he works for Disney than he is a member of a g ang

. No one could have seen him or heard him speak, or let alone find any thing out about hi s background. Here’ s a man who went to school [and] who was employ ed his entire life. He’ s as far from a gan g member a s any

body could be.
To come up with that story and tell this jury that you wer e in fea r of your life and that she was g oing to g et you is absurd. It’s rea lly delusional. And unfortunate ly the delusion continues in what you think is y our justification for taking some one’s life

. Clearly –and it is mit igation that y ou did things of a positive nature

. You supported

-7-your family

. But you know what, you’re not the only guy in the whole world or marrie d couple in the whole world that had a rguments, couldn’t g et along***. And so to think that the answe r to this is, well, I ’ll just kill her and that will work and then I ’ll kill m y self, that will work, is insanity ***.
It’s what m ak es the s tree ts unsafe beca use unfortunately a lot of t imes people who do what you did miss and shoot someone who has nothing to do with any body who ends up dead just bec ause the y happen to g et in the way of some per son’s displeasure

. Well, you know what, the leg islature saw fit to add enhanc ements on people who use firea rms to kill people, which apply to you *** [and] that’s 25 y ear s added on to the
sentenc e. People are not safe around you. They just are n’t. You have n o h es i t at ion to use a firea rm. You used it twice. Y ou used it on your wife and you used it on yourself.
Even your failed att em pt to g et the police to shoot you could have resulted in someone else being injured, i ncludin g o n e o f t he poli ceme n who were just doing their job.”
The trial c ourt imposed a sente nce of 56 y ear s in prison and then adde d: “And so it’s clea

r on the re co rd * * * and clea r to you, most of what I believe you testified to in this j ury

trial under oath was nothingshort of per jury .” ¶ 29 On appea l, Powell contends his sentenc e is excessive. He argues the trial court failed to consider that (1) based on the s urrounding circ umstances and Powel l’s conduct before the incident
, t h e shooting was an out-of-c hara cter and isolated incident that is unlikely to

reoc cur, (2) he made the ultimate showing of remorse in his suicide attempt, (3) he spent the previous deca de working to improve himself, and (4) beca use the incident occur

red afte r his wife cheated on him and moved out and Powell had just been threatened by his wife’ s boy friend, Powell acte d under strong provocation and there wer e g rounds tending to excuse or justify his conduct.

¶ 30 Analy sis ¶ 31 The trial court has broad discretionar y power s in imposing a sentenc e and the trial court’s
sentenc ing decision is entitled to g rea t defe renc e. Peop l e v. Stacey
, 193 I ll. 2d 203, 209 (2000). This defe renc e is appropr iate beca use the trial court is in a better position to deter mine the punishment to be imposed. People v. Qu i ntana , 332 I ll. App. 3d 96, 110 (2002). The trial court has the opportunity to weigh fac tors such as the defe ndant’s

cre dibilit y , demea

nor, g ener al moral char acte r, mentality
, social environment, habits, and
ag e. Stacey
, 193 I ll. 2d at 209. We w ill not substitut e our judgme nt f or the judgme nt of the trial court mere ly beca

use we would have weighed the fac tors differ ently

. Id

. A defe ndant’s
sentenc e will be disturbed on appea l only when the trial court abus ed i t s discretion. Quintana
, 332 I ll. App. 3d at 109. Fur ther, a sentenc e within the statutory limit s, as here
, will
not be considere d excessive unless it g reatly varie s with the spirit and purpose of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offe nse. People v. Fern
, 189 I ll. 2d 48, 55- 56 (1999).

-8-¶ 32 The trial court is not require d to detail prec isely for the rec ord the exact proce ss by which

the penalty was deter

mined or articulate its considera tion of mitigating fac t o rs

. Quintana
, 332 I ll. App. 3d at 109. The presumption is that the trial court properl y co n s i d er ed all mitigating fac tors befor e it, and the burden is on the defe ndant to show otherwise. People v. Brazziel , 406 I ll. App. 3d 412, 434 (2010). Powell has fa iled to satisfy this burden. ¶ 33 First, Powell contends that the trial court failed to consi d er t h at b ec au se this was a n isolated incident that occur red under highly unusual circ umstances, the o f f ense was the result of circ umstances unlikely to reoc cur (730 I L CS 5/5-5-3.1(a )(8) (West 2008)). But, the rec ord
sug g ests that the trial court considere d and reje cted this fa ctor. Dur ing se ntencing , the trial court stated that the nature of the offe nse, Powell’s testimony
, and the information that the State and Powell had put in the rec ord we re al l considere d. The trial court noted that it “vividly” rec alled Powell’s testimony
, which included Powell’s acc ount of the pain from his wi fe’ s infidelity
, his failing marria g e, the couple’ s attempts to rec oncile, and the alleged threats he rec eived from Hudson. Fur ther, the trial court stated that “people are not safe ” around Powe ll because he has “ no hesitation to use a firea rm,” as evidenc ed by

his using a firea rm on his wife and himself and his attem p t t o prompt the police to shoot him, which could have resulted in someone else being injured. Considering the circ umstances, the trial
court implicitl y reje cted Powell’s argument that this was an isolated incident and instead conclude d that his behavior sug g ested he was a dang er to others. See People v. Kosyla
, 129 I ll. App. 3d 685, 703 (1984) (trial cou rt did not disallow mitigating eff ect of defe ndant’s

move awa y from location from wher e offe nse occur red, but rathe r defe ndant’s char acte r and attitude indicated it was likely he would commit another crime)

. ¶ 34 Second, Powell contends that the trial court failed to consider his show of remorse . Our
courts have stated that a defe ndant’s demonstration or lack of remorse is an important fac tor for the trial court to co n s i d er. People v. Barrow
, 133 I ll. 2d 226, 281 (1989); People v. Thurmond
, 317 I ll. App. 3d 1133, 1143 (2000); People v. Merritte
, 242 I ll. App. 3d 485, 494 (1993). Durin g s en tencing
, defe nse counsel argued that Powell’s suicide attempt was the “ultimate show of remorse ,” and in allocution, Powell said he felt remorse and apolog ized. Howeve r, P owell al s o s t at ed the shooting occurr ed because of Albert Hudson and blamed others for hurting h i s relationship with Wil kins. The trial court’s comments sug g est it considere d Powell’s level of remorse as a fac tor, but was not persua ded that Powell actua lly felt remorse , stating, “Probably the most troubling thing about your position *** is you think
you wer e justified in doing what you’re doing–what you did to this victim.” Even if the trial
court did not weigh o r v i ew the fac tor in the way Powell urg es, the rec ord shows that the
court c onsidered Powe ll’s purported r emorse thr oug h suicide. ¶ 35 Third, Powell argues that the trial court failed to con s i d er h i s d ec ad e of progress. Powell’s employ

ment history was contained in the PSI
, as was his over- 10-year -old criminal history

. The trial court stated it considere d the information his attorney s put in the rec ord and the fac tors in mitigation and ag g ravation. The trial court also noted that in mitigation, Powell “did things of a positive nature ” and supported his family

. Whil e the trial court cannot ignor e evidenc e in mitigation, it may deter mine the weight t o attribute to mitigating evidenc e. People v . Markiewicz , 246 I ll. App. 3d 31, 55 (1993). ¶ 36 Four

th, Powe ll a

rgues that the trial court failed to c onsider that he a cted unde r a strong

-9-provocation (730 I L CS 5/5-5-3.1(a )(3) (West 2008)) and there wer e substantial g rounds

t ending to excuse or justify his conduct (730 I L CS 5/5-5-3.1(a )(4) (West 2008)). W h i l e “strong provocation” is not define d in the Unified Code of Correc tions, t he simil ar term “ser ious provocation” has a well-established meaning when considering whether an individual acte d under serious provocation sufficie nt to reduc e t h e o ffense of first degree murder to second degree murder, and is limit ed to the cate g ories of subst an t i al p h y s ical injury or assault, mutual quarr el or combat, illega l arr est, and spousal adultery

. Merritte
, 242 I ll. App. 3d at 492. Mer e words, no matter how insulti ng , and including t hose which car ry messag es of adultery
, are insufficient. People v. Hernande z , 204 I ll. App. 3d 732, 741 (1990). Whil e strong provocation a s a mitigating fac tor at sentenc ing encompa sses a wider
rang e of conduct than serious provocation for the purposes of second d egree murder ( Merritte
, 242 I ll. App. 3d at 493), the provocation must nonetheless be direc t and immediate ( People v . Adamcyk, 259 I ll. App. 3d 670, 680 (1994)). ¶ 37 Her e, the trial court considere d and reje cted Powell’s argument that he was in fea r of his life, stating : “To come up with that story and tell this jury

you wer e in fe ar of your l ife and that she

was g oing to g et you is absurd. It’s rea lly delusional. And unfortuna t ely the delusion continues in what you think is y our justification for taking some one’s life .” And the trial c ourt found it incre dible that Powell c ould have be lieved Hudson wa s a g ang member, finding that “no one could have even seen him or hear d him speak” could think he

was a g ang member. At the end of the sentenc ing hearing, the trial court stated that it found
most of Powell’s testimony to be “nothing short of perjury .” The trial court considere d Powell’s argument that he was p rovoked and justified but did not believe it. Cf. People v. Calhoun
, 404 I ll. App. 3d 362
, 386 (2010) (re manding for rese ntencing wher e trial court fa iled to rec ognize full extent of provocation, the fac tual basis for provocat i o n wa s

corr oborate d, and trial court never questioned or attempted to neg ate fac t that defe ndant was sincere in her be lief that sourc e of pr ovocation occ urre d). ¶ 38 Even putting cre dibilit y issues aside, the trial court did not find that Hu d son’s ac tions amounted to strong provoca tion or g rounds to justify or excuse Powell’s conduct. The trial court stated: “[Accor ding] to you, you are in your own home, locked in be hind a locked door with a

wea pon. That was what you said under oath. No w, I don’t believe for a second that’s
true. But if it was, all you would have had to [ d o ] wa s s tay there and you wouldn’t be standing in front of me and this woman wouldn’t have been shot and killed. It wouldn’t have ha ppened.”
Be cause there was a time when Powell was alone in his locked apar tment, h e d i d not experience a direc t a

nd immediate threat and could have avoided the incident entirely

. The trial court considere d and reje cted the mitigating fac tor that Powell act ed under a strong provocation and there wer e substantial grounds to excuse his conduct. ¶ 39 L astly
, the rang e for Powell’s offe nse was 45 to 85 y ear s–20 to 60 y ear s for first degree murder (730 I L CS 5/5-8-1(a )(1) (West 2008)) and an additional 25 y ear s beca use during the commission of the offe nse, Powell persona lly discharg ed a firea rm that proxi mately cause d

-10-death to another person (730 I L CS 5/5-8-1(d) (iii) (West 2008)). T h at Powell’s 56-year

sentenc e is in the lower half of the sentenc ing rang e sug g ests that the trial court considere d the mitigating fac tors prese nted. Fur thermore
, the most important fac tor to be considere d by the trial cour

t is the seriousness of the Powe ll’s offense

. Brazziel , 406 I ll. App. 3d at 435. ¶ 40 For

the fore g oing r easons, we find that the trial court considere d the m itigating fac tors prese nted and did not abuse its discretion in sentenc ing P o we l l t o 56 y ear s in prison. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the judgment of the trial c ourt.

¶ 41 Affir

med.

-11-