2023 IL App (1st) 221742-U 

FOURTH DIVISION 

Order filed: December 14, 2023 

No. 1-22-1742 

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). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE 

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

FIRST DISTRICT 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MARKUS MANNIE, 

Defendant-Appellant. )

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the 

Circuit Court of Cook 

County. 

No. 14 CR 10421 

Honorable Stanley 

J. Sacks, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Ocasio III concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER 

¶ 1 Held: We affirmed the defendant’s sentence over his claim that the ten-month-old presentence 

investigation was inadequate where the defendant forfeited the claim by failing to 

object in the trial court and does not argue for plain-error review by this court. 

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, the defendant, Markus Mannie, was found guilty of attempted first degree 

murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4, 9-1(a)(1) (West 2014)) and aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 
No. 1-22-1742 

 

 

 

- 2 - 

 

5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2014)). The trial court merged the guilty findings and imposed a sentence of 

28 years for attempted first degree murder. The defendant appealed arguing, inter alia, that the trial 

court erred during sentencing by considering a prior conviction that was void ab initio under People 

v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116. This court agreed with the defendant and held that the trial court erred 

when it relied, in aggravation, on the defendant’s prior conviction for Aggravated Unlawful Use of 

a Weapon because the prior conviction was void ab initio. People v. Mannie, 2019 IL App (1st) 

163135, ¶¶ 51-53. We affirmed the defendant’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded the 

case for resentencing. Id., ¶ 55. 

¶ 3 The facts related to the offense and defendant’s trial are adequately set forth in our disposition 

of the defendant’s prior appeal, and we do not find it necessary to repeat them here. See People v. 

Mannie, 2019 IL App (1st) 163135. 

¶ 4 On remand, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 26 years’ incarceration which included a 

6-year sentence for attempted first degree murder and a 20-year enhancement for personally 

discharging a firearm. On appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred during resentencing 

because the presentence investigation (PSI) used had been prepared 10 months earlier and should 

have been updated. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

¶ 5 On remand, the trial court ordered the preparation of a PSI. The PSI was received on December 

9, 2021. On September 23, 2022, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the beginning of 

the hearing, the State and the trial court discussed whether an updated PSI had been prepared. The 

following colloquy occurred: 

“THE COURT: Was there a PSI done since he's been back? 

MR. KLEIST [(ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY)]: One moment. 
No. 1-22-1742 

 

 

 

- 3 - 

 

THE COURT: I would tend to think so, but I want to be sure. 

 I see a thing sticking up in the file with a blue back on it. 

MR. KLEIST: Around December of 2021, I believe one was completed. 

THE COURT: Correct. I have one here, December 9, 2021. We have a PSI done. We'll go 

ahead with the additional evidence, if there is any State.” 

During the hearing, the State did not present any witnesses in aggravation. The defendant called 

numerous good-character witnesses and spoke in allocution. Following argument by the parties, the 

trial court sentenced the defendant to 26 years’ incarceration. The defendant filed a motion to 

reconsider the sentence which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed. 

¶ 6 The defendant argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the PSI used by the 

trial court was 10 months old at the time of the hearing. The State responds that the defendant has 

forfeited the claim by failing to object at sentencing. We agree with the State. 

¶ 7 “[I]t is the duty of the parties to bring to the attention of the sentencing authority any alleged 

deficiency or inaccuracy in the presentence report.” People v. Tapia, 2014 IL App (2d) 111314, ¶ 34. 

Here the defendant did not object to the alleged deficiency in the 10-month-old PSI during the 

sentencing hearing or in his post-sentencing motion to reconsider. In his reply brief, the defendant 

argues that the interaction between the State and the court was adequate to preserve his contention 

that the PSI was inadequate because too much time had elapsed since its preparation. The defendant 

cites nothing in the record to support this argument, and we find it patently without merit. Neither 

the court nor the State described the PSI as inadequate or raised any possible deficiency related to 

the delay between its preparation and the sentencing hearing. More importantly, it was the obligation 

of the defendant to object to the use of the PSI, yet defense counsel said nothing about the adequacy 
No. 1-22-1742 

 

 

 

- 4 - 

 

of the PSI during the sentencing hearing and did not raise the issue in the defendant’s post-sentencing 

motion. 

¶ 8 Relying on the decision in People v. Harris, 105 Ill. 2d 290, 302 (1985), the defendant argues 

that a PSI can only be waived in accordance with Section 5-3-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections 

(Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-3-1 (West 2020)). However, the defendant’s reliance on Harris is misplaced. 

Harris addresses the absence or complete inadequacy of a PSI while here the defendant is 

challenging only the age of the PSI, and he has not alleged that the PSI is otherwise inadequate. The 

plain language of section 5-3-1 of the Code identifies when the parties may agree to waive a PSI 

completely but makes no mention regarding a time limit for the use of a PSI. See 730 ILCS 5/5-3-1 

(West 2020). 

¶ 9 In its brief, the State also addresses the question as if the defendant had raised it under the plainerror doctrine. We find it unnecessary to do likewise. When a defendant fails to argue for plainerror 

review, he forfeits the issue for review. See People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545-46 (2010). Here, 

the defendant does not argue for plain-error review and the issue is, therefore, forfeited. 

¶ 10 Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude the defendant has forfeited any claim of error 

resulting from the trial court’s use of an allegedly stale PSI in sentencing him on remand to 26 years’ 

incarceration. It is for this reason that we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

¶ 11 Affirmed.