-1- Fou rth Di vi si on August 23, 2007

No. 1-05- 1087
THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 00 CR 1274 ) MARTIN CSASZAR, ) Ho no r ab le ) Cat her ine M. H aber ko rn, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CENE VI LL

E de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Af ter a j ury tria l i n A pril 2001, th e def endan t, Marti n C sas zar, wa s c onv

i cte d of sol i ci tation of murder f or hire an d two co unt s o f sol

i ci tati on of m urder, bu t he wa s acq ui tted of one cou nt of sol i ci tation of m urder f or hi re. F oll owi ng a he ari ng on his m otion f or a ne w tri al , t he

tria l court granted Cs as za r a n ew tri al . A t the con cl us i on o f his s ec o nd t r ial in200 4, C sa sz ar wascon vi cte d of
one count of soli

ci tation of m

urderf orhi re an d two coun

ts of s oli ci tation of m urder. Th e tri al court sentence d Csa sza r to a term

of 3 0 y ears of impriso nment for the convi ction of s olici

tation of m

urder f orhire, and t o t wo 20- year t er ms of impriso nment fo r his co nvictio ns of sol i ci tati on of m ur der, wi th t he sentence s runn

in g concurrently. On appeal , Csaszar presen ts four iss

ues f or o ur revi ew: (1) whether the trial court erredwhen, aft er per for ming an in camera inspec t ion o f the St at e's infor mant documents, it deci

ded not to di sc lo se the redacted port ions of the documen

ts to the defe

nse; (2) whether the trial judge 's com

me nts refl ect t hat she c ons ider ed inap plicable ag gr avat ingfactors, such1-05-1087

-2-

that he i s enti tl ed to a n ew sente nc i ng he ari ng ; ( 3) w he the r one of hi s c onv i cti ons f or s ol i ci tation of murder mus t be vacated bec ause i

t violates the one-act, o ne-cri me doctr in e; an d (4) whet her t he
com pulsory ex tracti on of hi s b l ood a nd the pe rpetua l stori ng of hi s D NA prof i l e, purs ua nt to s ec ti on 5-4-3 of th e U n i f i ed Cod e of Cor re cti on s ( 73 0 I LC S 5 /5 -4 -3 )(W est 1998) ) , vi ol ate s h

i s f our th
am endm en t rig ht to be f ree f rom u nre ason ab l e se arch

es a nd s ei zures . BACK GROUND The Fi rst Trial Ma r t in Csaszar was

charged by i ndi ctmen t wi th two coun

ts of s oli ci tation of m urder f or hi re (720 IILC S 5/8-1 .2)(West 200 2)) and two count s of solicitation of murder (720 ILCS 5 /8-1. 1)(West 2002) ) for a ll

eged ly soliciting an unde rco ver De par tment of Alcoho l, To bacco and Firear ms (ATF) age nt n amed M ar k S haffer a nd an AT F co nfident ial inf or mant na med Ja mes Ande rso n t o kil l Csas zar 's f

orme r em ploye r, Moni ca Cri san . Pr io r

t o an d d ur ing Cs as za r 's ju ry t r ial, it was di sclosed that Ander so n, w ho w as o ne o f the Stat e's pri nci pal witne sses, ha

d been paid a ppr oximat ely $500 by ATF fo rhis se r vic es in C sa sz ar 's ca se . On Ap r il 2 , 20 01 , t he ju ry f ound Csaszar gu ilty of t he sol i ci tation of m ur der f or h i rewi th re sp ec t to Agent Shaffer but acq uit t ed him on t he co rr esp ond ing
co unt wit h re spe ct t o And er so n. C sasz ar was fou nd gui l ty of sol i ci tati on of m ur der w i th re sp ec t to b oth Agent Shaffer and Ander so n. Fo llowing t he jury 's f in din g of guilt, Csasza

r retained n

ew counsel to lit iga t e h is mo t io n fo ra n ew t r ial. Aft er dis co ve ry and an ev ide nt iar y hea r ing , t he t r ia l judge ordered a new tria

l based on the St ate's fai

lure to d iscl

ose t o t he defen

se t he full ext ent of t he AT F's fi nan ci al de al i ng s wi th J am esA nd ers on i n v i ol ati on of Bra dy v. Ma ryland , 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194

(1963 ).1-05-1087

-3- The Second Tria

l Pri orto the second trial, Csaszar's counsel is sued a subp oena duces tecum to the A TF on Septembe r21, 200 1, and r equ est ed t hos e do cument s t hat wer e co ncer ned w ith t he A TF 's as soc i ati on wi th James A nde rson . The ATF r esp ond ed t o t he su bpo ena by t ende ring a co py of And er so n's contract, a lis

t o f pay me nts m ade to Anderson, and a n

umb er of other do cu men t s, all of whi ch h ad been re dacte d w i

th the exception of the contract. Defense counsel objec t ed t o t he r eda ct ions, and t he trial court reviewed the unredacted do cuments in camera on Novem ber 9, 200 1. Afte r inspe ct ing t he docum

en ts, the c ourt con

cl ude d that n

one of the redacted in

form ation would a

id de fen se counsel in de fen din g t he ir c lient an d t ha t co un se l alr ea dy h ad all t he relev ant, materi al

in form ation contai

ned in t he do cu men t s. T he co ur t fur t he rst at ed t ha t t he r ed ac t ed info r mat io n co ncer ned w het her t he i nf orm ati on And er so n p r o vid ed wo uld be us ed byt he AT F o rco nc er ne d A nd er so n's invo lve men t in
casesthat we

re not rel ated to Csasza

r's cas e. The court de cl

i ne d to order the ATF t o t ende r t he
unr edacted docum

en ts to def en se c ouns el
. Bef ore the start o f the n

ewt r ial, the ATF tendered addi tional , previ ously

undi sclosed docum en ts to def en se c ouns el

pertai ni ng to ATF' s de al

i ngs wi th A nde rson . Those

docum en ts also contain ed redactions. The court conducted a second in camera inspec t ion wit h re spe ct t o t he se co nd setof redacted documen

ts and, after revi

ewi ng them , turned over some, but not all, o f the doc um en ts wi thout reda

cti ons. The Ben ch Tri al On Jul y 12, 2004, Csaszar's se cond trial began . Below i s a sum

ma ry of the testim

ony tha t is r ele va nt t o t he iss ue s p r es en t ed in t his a pp ea l.1-05-1087

-4- The Stat e's Case Moni ca Cri san Moni ca Cris an testif

ie d that she and h

er husb and owned a t ru cking com pa ny , Li vd i mon Enterp rise

Corpor ation. She stated that she knew Csaszar b ecause h

e worked for her

uncl e as a truck dri ver. Crisa n testif ie d that Csaszar was di ssatis fi ed working f

or her uncle, and whe

n sh e l earned about thi s, sh

e of f ered h i m a j ob worki

ng f or her. C sas zar acce

pted the j ob of f er. Cris an statedthat in A pri l of 19 98 , C sa sz ar

qui t h uui s j ob wi

th the Crisans b ecause h e w an ted to go i n to bus i n es s wi th hi s f ather. Af ter quittin g hi s j ob, Csaszar arranged to pick uphi s f in al pay check two weeks later at Crisa n's house. Cris an testif ie d that prior to Csaszar' s coll ectin g hi s check, h

er hu sba nd t o ld h im

to expect a de duc t ion fo r so me damag e t o o ne of the tr ucks. Cris an testif ie d that Csaszar i

ndicated that the deduction

wasf i ne wi th h i m . Cris an testifi ed that on May 3, 19 98 , C sa sz ar wen t to her home t o p ick up his paychec k and he wa s let i

n to the kitchen, where h

er daughter was eatin

g. Crisan testifi ed that when sh

e asked Csaszar to si t do wn, he com

pli ed but sho ved t he t able ro ughly as he did s o. Crisan told h er daughter to fi ni sh eatin g in the li vi ng room. Accordi

ng to Crisan , when s

he ex pla in ed to Csaszar that his f

in al pay check wo uld in cl ude three deductions --- f

or a cash adva

nce, fo ra w o r kma n's co mpe nsa t io n c laim, and fo rda mag e t o a t ruc k -
- - he be ca me v er y up se t , sa id h e n ee de d mo r e mo ne y, p ulle d o ut a s mall gun, an d p oi n ted i t at her . C risan t est ifi

ed t hat aft er hear ing a click a nd se eing Cs asz ar pull t he trig ger, she b ecam

e scared an

d looked for the phone. Cri san testif ie d that Csaszar told h

er t hat she
wo uld be dead by the ti me pol i ce a rri ve d. Cri san

testi f i ed th at Csa sza

r then he ard so me noise co ming f rom the porchsta

i rsan d r an out of th e h ous e. Cr i sa n testi f i ed th at sh e r ep orte d th

e i n ci den t to police1-05-1087

-5-

and even tuall y l earn ed that Csa sza

r ha d be en arrested. On May 5, 1998, Csasz ar wa s arre st ed a nd cha rg ed w ith ag gr avat ed a ssau lt and
car rying/p os sess inga fi

rearm i n conn ection wi th the off ense. Crisa

n was not ifi

ed by mail that she
wo uld be a wi

tness i n the case , and sh

e went to co urt o n sev

eral occasi

ons where sh

e saw Csa sza r. On the nex t scheduled court dat e, Decem ber 17, 1999, pol

i ce i n f orm ed h er th at C sa sz ar

h ad tried to hi re som eone to kil l her. Ja

mesA nd ers on Jam es A nderson testif

ie d that he was a 74-y ear-old m

usi ci an an

d was the f

ormer sup er intend ent of t he Chica go Ho using Au thori ty. Heha d w orke d a s a

con f i de nti al i nf orm an t f or t he ATF f or appro xi

ma tely 20 years. He als o wo rke d a s a se cu r it y gu ar d a t Ja ka ck i Ba g a nd Ba rr el,
a compan y on the west side of Ch i cago. A nde rson testi f i ed th at i n Jan uary 1999, h e m et Csa sza r, who al so worked at Jakacki as a truckdriv

er. Anderson stated t hat in the sum me r of 1999, Csaszar began t alking t o him ab o ut Cr isa n a nd t o ld h im that she owed hi

m a lot of m oney . Anderson l

ater testifi ed that Csaszar f

irst spoke to him

about Crisan

i n l ate Novem

ber 1999
. Acco rd ing t o And er so n, Csaszar spoke about Crisan

for two o r three months

but it bec am

e worse in Novem ber and D ecem

ber of 1999. An

derson testif

ie d that Csas zar t old him every day t hat he wa nt ed C risan k ill ed be cau se she owed hi m m oney, becauseshe wa s t rying t o pu t him in ja il, a nd be ca us e h e fe ar ed go ing t o jail if she testifi ed. And er so n t es t ified t ha t Cs as za ras ke d h im to kil l C risa n. An derson testif

ie d that he refus ed. A nd ers on t es t ified t ha t he t o ld C sa sz ar t ha t he did no t kill pe ople a nd tha t i t wa s " not h

i s cup of tea." A nd ers on sta ted th at C saszar told hi

m to fi nd som eone who would ki

ll Cris an an

d he woul d pay $500.1-05-1087

-6-

A nd ers on testi f i ed th at on De cem

ber 15, 1 9 99, Csas zar gave him a piece o f pap er wit h a han d-drawn map o n one side a nd

on the other s i de Cr

i san 's na me, add ress , and phone n

um ber. At 6:45 p. m., on D ece mber 1 5, 199 9, Ander so n re ceived a pa ge fr om Cs asz ar , w ho w as in O hi o. A nd ers on testifi ed that later that eveni

ng, An derson cal le d ATF A gent Steven Brezette, whom h e had worked with f

or fi ve or si x y ears. An derson testif

ie d that he report ed

Csas zar 's desi

re to have Cri san kil le d once he real

iz ed Csaszar was

seri ous. An derson testif

ie d that t he f

oll owing m ornin g, Decem ber 16, 1999, he and Brezette went to t he Cook County State's Attor ney 's of fi ce, where a conse

nsual overhear order was obtained. Later that day, A nderson spoke wit h Csas zar t hre e t imes by phone , a nd each conversation was recorded. Following the se c onve rsati ons, A nde rson and A TF A

gen t Mark Shaf f er, who was po sing as a

hi t man , drove

to Ja ka ck i Bag a nd Ba rre l to mee t Cs as za

r. A nd ers on testifi ed th at onc e they

arriv ed, Csaszar got into the car with h im and A gent Shaf fer an d the three
men 's conv ersa tion wasrecorde d on a

udio and vi deotape. A nd ers on acknowl edged that bet wee n 199 1 and 200 2, he had been p aid $1 7, 180 in cash by t he ATF a nd t hat he re ceived $4, 025 in conne ct ion wit h t he Csa sza r c ase , includ inga $3,500 reward. An derson al so test if

ie d that he recei

ved rewards f

rom ATF i

n those cases w

hich are n ot lost, which
are s ettle d "prope

rl y ," an d where the def

endan t is f ound g uil ty. Audi ot apes and V

ide ot ape Sum

ma ries The Sta te in tro duced i nto evide nce audi ot apes of the three teleph

one conversations between A nd ers on and Csaszar and the v

ide ot ape of the m

eetin g betwe en

Csa sza r, Ander so n, a nd Age nt Shaf f er. Ander so n bega n t he first pho ne co nver sat ion by informing Cs asz ar , " I ha ve go t t he best news y ou have ev

ery h eard in your l if e" and ex pla in ed that he h

ad a "partner" standi

ng by who had1-05-1087

-7-

t aug ht hi m the " busi

ness ." Ande

rson told Csaszar to make sure to bri ng the m oney and that A nd ers on and h is partnerwould take care of the m atter that nigh

t. Anderson promised thatif Csaszar bro ught the mone

y , he an d h is "p eo ple " w o uld no t let Cs as za rdo wn . Cs as za rsa id t ha t he wo uld
ar rive in Chicago bet wee n 8 and 9 p. m., t hat he wo uld g o ho me, g et $50 0, and t hen go t o t he "pl ace ." Fourh our s l

ate r, A n ders on pl ac ed a c al l to Csaszar. Csaszar was stil l dri vi ng ba ck to Chi cago but estim ated that he would b e arriv in g in 30 to 45 mi

nutes. Csaszar as

ked An derson to o pen

t he garage at Jak ack i so he co uld p ut his tr uck awa y. Ande rso n re spo nded by reminding Csa sza r t o br ing t he mo ne y. C sa sz ar sa id h e d id n o t ha ve t he mo ne y bu t co uld ge t it and then in quired wh

ether Jakacki had giv en Csaszar's pa

yc heck to Anderson as

Csaszar h

ad requested. When

Csasza r expresse d conc ern that Anderson h

ad not been

giv en the pay

check, A nderson ex

pla in ed that he had not go ne t o wo r k t ha t da y. C sa sz ar t he n t o ld A nd er so n t ha t , giv en t he pr o ble ms par king a bi g truck in front of hi

s hom e, he was goi

ng to go to Jakacki

fi rst, without bringi

ng the m oney , and then

return to his hou se t o g et t he cash. A nderson told Csa szar that he sh ould not do t hat

but he sho uld g et t he
mone y fi rst. Csaszar said he woul d page An derson so that Anderson woul d k now when

to go to Jakacki t o o pen t he garage. Anders on cl osedthe conversation by tell in g Csaszar that he s

hould pa ge him w he n he ha d t he mo ne y. In t he final pho ne ca ll, Csas zar t old Ander so n he had ar rived in Chi ca go a nd A nd ers on confi rmed that Csaszar had the m

oney . The vi

deotape o f the me eting b etwe en Ande rso n, Ag ent Shaf f er, and Csaszar began

with A nderson i ntroducing A

gent Shaf fer as the ma n wh o had t augh t A nd ers on the " bus i ne ss" and by

i nf ormi ng C sas zar t hat Agen

t Shaff er was even

better at it t han Ander so n. Ag en

t Shaf fer conf irm ed the nature of thei

r relati onshi

p by say in g they had worked1-05-1087

-8-

to gether for 10 y ears. Csaszar

told S ha f

f er that his

ex-boss " had to go. " Csasza r explai ned that Cris an had got ten him

in to tro ubl e, t hat she was a

wit ne ss , an d t ha t t he o nly wa y o ut o f it is if "she's not go nna be no mor e. " Age nt Shaf fer responded by

aski ng Csaszar if

he wan ted her kil le d. Csaszar repl i ed th at that i s wh

at he ne eded
. When Age nt Shaffer inquire d wha t he wa s willi ng t o p ay, Cs asz ar said he did no t kno w and that Agen t Shaff er shoul d nam

e hi s pric e. Anders on spoke up and sugges ted $500. Csas zar gave Agent Shaf

fer the mone y. A gent Shaf fer then asked a seri

es of questions regardin

g where Cri san li ved, what sh

e l ooked like, a nd

wh at k i n d of ca r s h e d rove. Cs as za

r s tate d th

at Cri sa n l i v ed n orth of La wre nc e on Tal man an d pr ovi de d di recti ons to the g en

era l are a b ut e xp l ai ne d that he di d n

ot kn owthe exact addr ess or even what t he house looked like, except that it was a t wo -flat and t hat t he Crisa ns li ved on the f

irst f loor. Csaszar descri

bed Cri san as

a whi te woman, i

n he rthirties or fort ies, not t all but not sho rt , no t fat but not t hin, with da rk hai r that was nei

ther long n

or short . Csaszar ha

d
no ide a w ha t kin d o f ca rCr isa n d r o ve . Cr isa n mig ht be wit h he rhu sba nd , bu t Cs as za rdo ub t ed t he ir ch ild would be there. Shaf

fer al so in quired of Csaszar how he wan

ted Crisan kil le d. Csaszar

said he did not care. He further stated t hat he di d n ot want Cri san tortur ed and di d not want her body f

ound. Shaf f er sa i d he would sh oot her. Mark Shaf fer ATF Agent Mar k S haffer t est ifi ed a bou t his video t ape d co nver sat ion wit h Csas zar . Ag ent Shaf fer st at ed t hat he had gi

ven Csaszar at least two oppor tuniti es to withdraw from the pla n t o kill Crisa n. Agen

t Shaff er testifi ed that, whil

e i n the car, Csas zar had wri

tt en on a scrap

of p ape r Cr isan's
nam e, "43 25 T alman," a nd t he wo rd s "Wes t er n" and "nort h." The p i ec e of pa per w as i n trod uc ed i n to1-05-1087

-9-

evi dence. A ge nt S ha

f f er te sti f i ed tha t the addre ss on T al man wa s i nc on sist ent wit h Csas zar 's directions to Crisan' s house. Stev en Brez ette ATF Ag en t St ev en Br ez et t e t es t ified t ha t he int er vie we d C sa sz ar fo rap pr o xima t ely 2 0 mi nutes. Agen

t Brezett e testif

ie d that Csaszar told hi

m that Cri san h

ad fi red him b ec au se he wa s la zy. His fi nal pay check was short of money that he was o wed and, whil e admi tt in g there was a
con f ron tation wit h Crisa n, C sasz ar denied t hre at ening her . C sasz ar st at ed t hat follow ing t he
con f ron tation wit h Crisa n, he buri ed a gun i n Mi ch i ga n , but r etu

rned th er e, dug i

t up , a n d g av e i t to police. Acco rd ing t o Ag ent Brezette, Csaszar to ld h im that he "f li pped" af ter th e c on f

ron tati on wi th Cris an and wan ted to kil l h er. Agent Brezette test if

ie d that Csaszar told h

im it washis id ea t o kill Cris an and that he h

ad wanted to do so ever si nce the c onf

ro nt at io n w it h he rt ha t ha d r es ult ed in char ges being fi

le d agai nst hi m. F in al ly , Agent Brezette test if

ie d that Csaszar told hi

m that he had pa id A gen t Sh af f er $5 00 to kill C r isa n, t ha t t he po lice "d id go o d" by ar r es t ing him be ca us e h e w o uld be ver y dange ro us t o s oc iety, and t hat he wa s ver y embarr asse d by t he st at ement s he ha d made in the
car wi th A nde rson and A gen

t Shaf f er. Robert Rodriguez Chi cago pol i ce de tecti v e R ob er t Rod ri gu ez testi f i ed th at C sa sz ar

also m ade a sta tem en t to him th at w as l arge l y con siste n t wi th th e state men t m ade to A gen t B rezette. De tective Rodri guez testifi ed that Csaszar told hi

m that Cris an had f ired h im because of dam age to o ne of the trucks, that he was afra id t he cha rg es a gainst him wou ld re sult in him having to go t o jai

l, an d that he h

ad off ered An ders on $50 0 to ki l l

Cri san .1-05-1087

-10- Fabio Valent ini Assist ant Stat e's A

tt orney (A SA) Fab io Val

entin i testi fi ed that Csas zar gave an o ra l sta t ement to hi m wh ich was basically the sam

e as the precedi

ng statemen

ts. ASA Val

entin i testi fi ed that Csaszar told h i m h e h ad aske d A n ders on to kil l C risa n wi thin the past week

bu t An de rs on h ad not
sa id wh eth er

h e w oul d. A SA Val en ti n i testi f i ed th at C sa sz ar

sta ted th at th e day b ef oreh i s a rre st, Csaszar had s po ken w ith And er so n by ph on e a n d of f er ed h i m $5 00 to ki

l l Cri sa n b ec au se he di d n ot want her sho wing up on t he next co ur t dat e. ASA Va lentini st at ed t hat he o ffered Csas zar t he choi ce bet wee n giving a hand wr itt en st at ement or leaving i t as an oral statem en t. ASA Val entin

i testi fi ed that Csaszar optedfor t he handw rit t en st at ement but , w hen he s aw w hat Valent ini had wr itt en, he ref use d to si gn i

t. Csaszar's Case Martin Csaszar Ma r t in Csaszar testif

ie d that he began

working at

Jak ack i Bag a nd

Ba rr el a s a t ruc k d r ive rin t he fal l of 1998, where he m

et James An derson, who was em

ploy ed as a se curity

off ic er. Csaszar testifi ed that he and A

nderson b egan ex

chan gin g casual greetings on an al most daily

basis. Csaszar testifi ed th at A n ders on f re qu en tl y i n v i ted h i m to go ou t to eat but Csas zar wo uld d ecline, saying he had to go home. Csaszar

t est ifi ed t hat in the s pr ing o f l999, he ac cep t ed o ne o f Ander so n's invitat ions because he wa s t ired of be ingpestered. Csaszar testif ie d t hat Ander so n dr ove t o t he r est aur ant and pa id for the m eal and, af ter eat ing, t he men had a long co nver sat ion. Ander so n t old Csas zar t hat he looked sa d a nd as ke d w hy. Cs as za rt es t ified t ha t he r ep lied t ha t his wif e had l eft hi m, wh ic h he f eared
wo uld caus e prob l ems wi th "Im m i gration," th

at he di d not l i ke b ei ng a truck dri ver, and that he had1-05-1087

-11-

le gal probl ems stem m i ng f rom th e i nc i den t wi th Mon i ca Cri san . Csa sza

r tes ti f i ed tha t An de rs on in form ed hi m that he had f

riends at "Imm

igration" who could depor t Csaszar's w if e and clear his record. Csaszar testif

ie d that with respect to his des ire to change o cc up at io ns, And er so n t o ld h im that he co uld as sist him by helping him get a job a s a g ove rnment ag en t , alt ho ug h C sa sz ar wo uld have to acqu i re t he nec essa ry qu alifi

cat ions bu t co uld d o s o by wo rk ing t empo ra rily f or Ander so n. W i

th
re spe ct t o his leg al tr ou bles involving Crisan, A nderson explai

ned that Crisan was a

crucial witness in t he ca se ag ain st Cs as za ran d t he ca se wo uld be di sm is sed if she were to disa

ppear. Csaszar testif

ie d that An derson off

ered to make Cri san disappear but told Csasza rt hat he wo uld have t o g ive him the si gn b eca use he could not do an

y thi ng on his own . Csaszar testifi ed that foll

owing thi s i ni tial con v er sa ti on wi th Anderson about his problem s, he conti nued thei r relati onshi

p, went to hi s house, and m et Anderson' s wi fe. Csaszar recal le d two ot her spe cific conve rsa t ions t hat t he men had re gar ding his pr oblems w ith Cr isan. Csaszar testifi ed that on o ne o cca sion, Ander so n app ear ed in fro nt of hi s own house (whi

ch was l ocated near Jakacki Bagand Barrel

), announced that he h

ad kil le d Cris an the prev

ious n igh t, and warned

hi m to expect
a visit fro m the po lice. Cs asz ar t est ifi ed t hat dur ing ano t her co nver sat ion, Ander so n t old him that he
wou l d h el p h i m b y b ri n gi n g f ederal ag en ts to testi f y to hi s character. Csaszar sta ted tha t An de rs on expl ai ned that in order to do t hi s, he woul d have to pr ovide An derson wi th in form ation ab out Crisa n, including her address, ph

one num ber, and the b est tim

es to call her, so that t he f

ederal ag en ts co uld t alk t o he ran d g et he rsid e o f t he st o ry bef o r e g o ing in

f ront of the j udge on Cs asz ar' s b ehalf

. Csaszar testifi ed that it was i

n response to this

request for in

form ation ab out Cris an that he h ad drawn the m

ap and provi ded A

nde rson wi th Cri san 's addre ss a nd phone n

um ber.1-05-1087

-12-

Csaszar testi f i ed th at A n ders on ca me u p w i th th e i de a to kil l Cri san and tha t he, C sas zar, had
never thought o f doi

ng so bef ore meetin

g An derson. Csaszar stated that he had no reaso na

bl e or logical ex pl an ati on as to wh y h e g ot i n to the car wi

th Ande rson and A

gent Shaf fer, but he stated t hat he knew at t hat t ime that a killing was a bou t t o o ccu r. Csas zar furt her t est ifi ed t hat it w ou ld haunt him f or the re st of h

i s l i f e. Cs as za r te sti f i ed th at h e h ad a d i spute wi th Crisa n ove r his pa ycheck and that he fo und it agg ra vat ing t o ha ve t o g o t o c ou rt , bu t he de nied t hat he th re ate n ed Cr i sa n wi th a han dgun or had agrudge against her because of hi s l eg al prob l em s. C sa sz ar te sti

f i ed tha t he di d n ot
r ec all t alking t o Ag ent Bre zet t e o r D et ect iveRodriguez an d, while he di d remem ber speak i ng to ASA Va len t ini, he co uld no t r ec all ma kin g t he inc r iminat ing st at eme nt s a t t r ibu t ed t o him.

The Tr ial Cou rt 's Ru ling, Po st t rial Mo t ions a nd S ent encing The tri al cou rt f oun d C sa sz ar g

ui l ty of two c oun ts of sol i ci tati on of murd er and o ne co unt of soli ci tation of m urder f or hi re. The tr i al cou rt f oun d C sa sz ar n ot gu i l ty of one cou nt of sol i ci tation of m urder f or hi re. Csaszar

fi le d a m ot ion f or a new trial . On August 25, 2004, the trial court deni

ed t he mot ion. The pres en

tenc e i nv esti gation rep ort reveal

ed that, at the tim

e of the off

ense, Cs aszar was 28 years ol d. H e w as

b orn i n Rom an i a, mov ed to th e Uni

ted St ates at t he age of

19, and bec am

e a naturali zed ci tiz en si x y ears la ter. At t he age of

seven, Csaszar ha

d been in an acci dent, which cause d him to be i n a coma f

or 1 0 days. As a resul

t o f the accident, Csa sz ar wore glasses , suff ered a "m is directed" ey

e, and wasuna

bl e to ma ke de ci sions on

his own . Csas zar 's fat her was not ar ou nd
muc h wh ile he wa s gr ow ing up , bu t , w hen he w as, he o fte n physically abused Csas zar 's mo t he r . T his abuse e ve nt ua lly led t o t he co uple d ivor cing in 199 5 o r 1 996 . C sasz ar was also divo rc ed, had no1-05-1087

-13-

childre n, and had b een em ploy ed for18 mont hs pr ior t o his a rr est as a t ru ck d river by Jaka cki Ba g and Ba rr el. Csaszar did not use dru gs, drink excessi vel y, or belong to any gangs. He had no pri or conv i cti ons e i ther a s a j uve

ni l e or as a n adul t. In ag gr av ati on , the S tate

presenteda vict im i

mpact st at ement pr epa re d by Mo nica Cr isan. Acco rd ingto Cris an' s statemen t, t he day she l earned of C saszar' s attempt to arrange for her m urder
was t he t ur ning po intof her l if e. She was f

righ tened, was constantly

vi gil ant when awake, and h

ad ni ghtmares when asleep. Her fear af

fected her husb and, thei

r daug hter, a nd th ei r bu si ne ss. Cris an stated that she wo uld ca ll her hu sba nd as kin g h im t o co me h o me and to quit hi s j ob so he could stay with h er. Her preoccupat ion wi th the even

ts in volv in g Csaszar caused argum

ents between

her and her husb and. She was

afrai d to le t her daughter out of her

sight . C risan tes ti f

i ed tha t he r lac k of at t ent ion, i

na bi l i ty to con centr ate , i nd ec i si ve ne ss , an d f ea r of oth er pe opl e f orc ed th em to clo se t he ir bus i ne ss. Ad di t io na lly, i

n a ggrav ati on, the State argued th at a se

vere sentence

wa s w arran

ted base d on two statut ory aggravati

ng f actors: t he def

endan t's conduct caused or threatenedser iou s har m and t he defend ant had a prior history of deli nquency based on the pending un lawf ul use of weapons c as e involvingthe i

nc i den t wi th Cri san . The State also asked the j udge to consi der as aggra va tin g f actors t he fact that Csaszar

was on bond at t he tim

e of the offense an

d that Crisan was a wi

tness ag ain st him. In mi tigation, def

ense couns el

pr ese nt ed e vidence t hat , d ur ing t he 41⁄2 years spe nt awa iting t r ial, Cs as za rha d u se d h is t ime c o nst ruc t ive ly in jail by e ar ning his G.E.D. and becomi ng i nvol ved in reli giouspro grams. Defens e co unse l also a rg ued t hat Csas zar had no pr ior co nvictio ns and h ad been charged o nly wit h misd eme anor unlawful use of a f

irearm in connecti on with the e arli er Cris an1-05-1087

-14-

i n ci den t. Fi nal ly , defense counsel

argued that whi le in ja il , Csaszar l iv ed by the rules and h ad not been a danger to ot hers. In al locution, Cs aszar stated that his conduct was in excusable , that he was deepl y asham ed of h i s a cti on s, an d th at h e des er v ed to be pun is hed. Csas zar expl

ai ned that he h

ad grown up without rel i gi on but while incarc er at ed he had be co me a Chr istian. Csas zar also st at ed t hat re gar dless o f the sentence im posed, he would b ear no bi tt erness toward any

one. The tri al cou rt se nte nc ed Cs as za r to 30yea

rs ' i m prison men t f or s ol i ci tati on of m urder f or hi re and to two 20- ye ar terms of i mprisonm ent on the two cou

nts of sol i ci tati on of murder. The s entences
wer e o rd er ed t o r un co ncur re nt ly. After imposing s ent ence , t he court further ordered that Csaszar
su bmit bloo d sp ecimens to the Ill in ois State Polic e for DNA testi ng an d anal ys is . Csaszar f

il ed a
m otion to recons i der the se

nten ce, a nd th e tri al court den

i ed i t. AN AL YSIS I. Redact ed Recor ds Fi rs t, Cs as za

r a rgue s th at th i s c our t sh oul d r ev i ew th e docu men ts th at w er e te

n dere d to defense counsel wit h re dac t ions fo llowing an in camera inspec t ion t o d et er mine the correc tne ss

of t he trial cou rt' s dec i si on n ot to di sc l ose

the un red ac ted ve rs i on of the records to the defe

nse. Csa szar contends th at h

i s def ense at tr i al wa s e n tra pm en t an d th at h e is e n ti tl ed to h av e acc es s to unredacted po rt ions of the records tha t may su ppor t hi s th eory of the c ase . The

State argues that the tri

al court
co rr ec t ly det er mined t hat Csas zar was not ent itled t o t he unr eda ct ed d oc ument s. Alt er nat ively, the Sta te argue s tha

t thi s court shoul

d not rev i ew thi s i ssue on a

ppea l be caus e the

docum en ts are pro tect ed by

federal pri

vilege and therefore are not withi n the juri sdiction of Il

li nois court s.1-05-1087

-15-

We m us t deter m i n e w h eth e r t he t rial co ur t er re d whe n it d enied C sasz ar 's re que st for t he
unr eda ct ed d oc ument s aft er t he trial j udge's in camera revi ew. Th e stan dard of revi ew f or aco ur t 's deni al of a re que st for unr eda ct ed d oc ument s aft er an in camera in spect io n is abus e o f discr et ion. People v . Bean , 137 Il

l . 2d 65, 1 01-02(1990 ). In Bean , the Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court held that a def

endan t was not denied

his sixth a mendment right of cross - e x am

i n ati on or h i s f our tee n th ame nd men t r igh t t o a fa ir trial by the trial court 's ref

usal to orde r disc l osu re of a wi tn es s' s m en tal h ea l th records
. Bean , 137 Ill . 2d at 99-100. The Bean court app ro ved t he pr oc edu re wher eby t he t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a n in camera inspec t ion o f the witness' menta l health r eco rd s t o d et er mine whether they

contain ed rele van t inf ormation that could b e used to i m peac h the wi tnes s. Bean , 1 37 I ll. 2d a t 99- 100 . While t he r eco rd s in Bean were priv il eged under t he Mental

Heal th and Dev

el opmen tal Di sabi li ties Conf ide ntial ity Act, the court hel

d that such priv il ege must gi v e w ay to a d ef en da n t' s s i xth an d f our tee n th amendment right s but only t o t he ext ent that a tri al courtde term

i ne d the p ri

vi l eg ed i nf orm ati on to be rel ev an t and i m peac hi ng. Bean , 13 7 I ll. 2d at 10 0. Just as

a tr i al j udge may l i m i t cross -e x am

i n ati on to prev en t i n qui ries th at a rei rre l ev an t, repetitiv e, or t oo t im

e-consum in g, that har ass a wit ness, or t hat t hre at en t o d istr act a jur y from t he actual iss ue s by u nd uly

em phasi zi ng detai ls of the wi tness's li fe, he m ay al so li mi t a defendant's access to statutori l

y pri vi l eged i nf orma tion
. Bean , 13 7 Il

l . 2d at 1 00- 01. W

he n th e p atien t ora therapist
as se rtsthe priv

il ege, a trial judge ma y rev ie w a wi tness's me ntal h eal th records in camera and discl ose o nly those port ions

that are releva

nt when that releva

nce is not out wei ghed

by ot her factors. Bean , 137 Ill . 2d at 101. Al so in Pe opl

e v . Pr i n ty , 232 Ill . App. 3d 735 (1 992 ), t he ap pellat e co ur t follow ed t he1-05-1087

-16-

de ci si on in Bean and a ffi rmed t he t rial co ur t 's ref

usa l to rel eas e m

en tal he al th rec ords. Pri

n ty , 232 I ll. App. 3d a t 744 . S pec ifi cally, in Pri

n ty , t he de f en da nt s ough t, i n a moti on f orad di t io na l d isc o ve ry, to examine t he men

tal he al th rec ords of the v i cti m . Pri n ty , 232 I ll . App. 3d at 744. T hose reco rds, whi ch app ar ent ly had been r eviewe d by t he St at e's Atto rney 's of fi ce, were then rev

ie wed in camera by the tri al court. Pri

n ty , 232 Ill . App. 3d at 7 44. At t he heari ng followin

g the t rial cour t's in camera review, the

cou rt al l owe d the d ef

en da nt to rev i ew the vi cti m's i nta kerep or t t o Central Du Page Ho sp it al, but refused to giv e the defendant access to the remain in g repo rts because it fou nd t he records contain

ed no stat e men

ts of th e vi cti m relati ng to the i nc i den t in question
. Pri

n ty , 23 2 I ll. App. 3d at 744. The Pri

n ty co ur t fur t he rfo un d n o t hing in th e r ep ortsre l ev

an t to th e tr uth or verac i ty of the vi ctim, relev

ant to her mem

ory or perce pti on, or of

an i m peac hi ng n ature. Pri n ty , 232 Ill . App. 3d at 74 4. The

appe l l ate court

found that bas ed

upo n t he ho lding in Bean , the procedure foll owed b y the tri al cou rt str uc k the p rope

r b al an cebe twe en the de f en da nt' s ri gh t to ac ce ss

i nf orm ati on re levant t o t he cr edibility of a k ey witne ss and t he nee d t o maint ain the co nfident iality of t he vict im's
me ntal he al th rec ords. Pri

n ty , 2 32 I ll. App. 3d a t 744 . T he appella te court further noted

that it had also re viewed t he vict im's me ntal h eal th records subm

itted to the trial

court , and that it agreed

wi th t he t rial co ur t t hat t hos e r eco rd s co nt ained no addi ti on al mate rial re l ev an t to the cros s- exam

i na ti on or im peac hm en t of the vi cti m . Pri n ty , 232 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 744-45. In th i s ca se, w e co mpar ed t he r eda ct ed r eco rd s t hat Csas zar re ceived in disco ver y to t he unredacted

records revie

wed by the trial cou rt in camera . See Bean , 13 7 Ill. 2d at 102 ; Pri n ty , 232 I ll. App. 3d at 744. After compari ng the redacted records to the unredacted records, we fi nd that Csaszar recei ved al l the i nf ormation that was rel

evan t t o his case. Consequen

tly, we fi nd that the trial1-05-1087

-17-

cour t did not a buse i

ts discretion when i

t denied Csaszar's request for t he unredacted re cord s. We note t hat the St ate cites Peo ple v. Hanks , 210 Il l . Ap p. 3d 81 7, 822 ( 1991) , i

n s upport of it s a r gu men t t ha t ev en if t his court dis agrees wi th the trial court 's deci

si on to deny

Csaszar access to th e unr ed ac t ed r ec o r ds , t ho se r ec o r ds we r e n o ne t he les s be yo nd t he jur isd ict io n o f t he I llino is
cou rtsbecause

they are fede ral govern

me n t or ATF records. We fi nd Hankst o be fac t ua lly dis t ing uis ha ble f

ro m thi s ca se: (1) in

the in stant case, the request for the ATF' s records was m ade pr ior t o t rial while in Hanks , the request for the Secret Servicet ape s wa s made dur ingthe trial ; (2) in the inst ant cas e, t he AT F's r eda ct ed r eco rd s we re t ende re d t o t he de fendant , w hile in Hanks , we
n ote t hat t he Se cr et Ser vice's t ape s we re never obt ained by t he St at e o r t ende re d t o t he de f en da n t. Howev er, we need not r each this i ssue because weha

ve de term i ne d that the tri

al cou rt di d n ot abuse i ts di scre tion wh en i t deni ed Cs asz ar ac ces s to the un redac ted rec ords. I I
. On e A ct , On e C r ime Ne xt, Csaszar

was convi

cted of three off

enses : (1) soli ci

tation of m

urderfor hi

re, in whi ch he sol i ci ted A ge nt S ha

f f er to m urder C ri sa n;(2) sol i ci tati on of m urder, i n w hi ch he sol i ci ted A nd ers on to murder Cr is an; and (3) soli ci tation of m

urder, in wh

ic h he soli ci ted Agent Shaf

fer to mur de r Crisa n. C sasz ar ar gue s t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in ent er ingt he co nvictio ns and im posin g sentence s f orthe two charges of

sol i ci tati on of m ur der b ec au se

th ey ar e th e s am e act. Csaszar al

so argues that t he trial court erred in

enterin g a convi ction an d im posin g sentence

on the s o lic itation of

murder chargein whi ch h e soli ci ted Agent Shaf

fer to murder Cri san, b ecause that charge is a

le sser-i ncl uded offense of t he cha rg e o f solicit at ion o f murde r fo r hire in which he so licited Ag ent Shaf f er to murder Crisa n. The Stat e argues that Csaszar h as wai ved thi s argum

ent for our review

b ec au se h e f ai l ed to1-05-1087

-18-

raiset his is su e in t he mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er his sentence . Al ternativel y, the State argues that Csas zar 's
ar gument is

withoutmeri

t bec aus e each

conv i cti on i s b ase d on s epara

te acts. Fi

rs t, we a ddre s s the Stat e's wai

ver argum

ent. Our revi ew of the record in dic ates that in

deed Csasza

r fai le d to raise t his i ssue i

n h i s m otion to recons i der the se

nten ce. How ever, the

wai ve r rul e i s a l i m i tati on on t he parties but not o n the j urisdi ction of the court. See Peop l e v . Ha m i l ton , 179 Ill . 2d319, 32 3 (199 7). We wil l a ddress Csas zar's conv

ict ions and se nte

nc esf or s ol i ci tati on of m urder a nd sol i ci tation of murder f or hi re beca use t he le sser-i

ncl uded off ense argum

ent aff ects Csaszar' s subs

tantial righ ts. See Pe o ple v. Baugh , 358 Il

l
. App. 3d 718, 730 (2005), citin g Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 183 Ill . 2d 425, 430 (1998 ). The Crim

in al Code of 196 1 (C ode ) provi

de s th at " [a] pe rs on c om

m i ts s ol i ci tati on of m urder when, with the i

ntent that the off

ense of fi rst degree murder be com

mi tt ed, he comm

ands, en courages orre qu ests another t o co mm it that o ff ense." 720 ILCS 5/8- 1.1(a) (West 2002). The Code provides that “ [a] pe rs on c om

m i ts s ol i ci tation of m urder f orhi re when, with the in

tent t hat the o ff

ense of f irst degree m ur der b e c om

m i tted , he p rocur es

an oth er to co m m i t th at of f ense pu rs ua n t to an y con tra ct, ag re em en t, un de r st an din g, co mma nd or request for money or anythin

g of val ue.” 720 I LCS 5/8-1.2(a) (West 2002). The one-act, one-crim e doctrine prohi

bi ts mul tiple convi

ctions wh en (1 ) t he
co nvictio ns are c arv ed f rom p recisel y the s am e ph y sical act or ( 2) one o f the off enses i s a le sser-i ncl uded off en se of the othe r. People v . Lin

dsey, 3 24 I ll. App. 3d 1 93, 200 (2 001 ), citing Pe o ple v. Rodriguez , 16 9 I ll. 2d 183, 186 (1996), and Peo ple v. King , 66 Il l . 2d 551 , 566 (1 977). Thus, t he first st ep in o ur analysis will be to det er mine whet her t he de fendant 's con duc t con siste d of
a si ngl e ph y sical act or se parate acts. People v . Harvey, 211 Ill . 2d 368, 38 9 ( 20 04 )
. "M ult iple1-05-1087

-19-

co nvictio ns are im

proper if the

y are based on precisely

the same phy

sical act. " Rodriguez , 169 I ll. 2d at 186. "Wh en mult iple co nvictio ns o f gre at er and les ser offense s ar e o bt ained fo r o ffenses a rising f rom a si ngle act, a sentencesho uld be impo sed on t he mos t ser iou s o ffense and the con vi cti ons on the less serious o ff

enses should be vacated." Pe o ple v. Ga r cia , 179 Il l . 2d 55, 7 1 (199 7). "If the cou rt determ i ne s th at the d ef en da nt' s c onv i cti ons are base d on multiple a ct s, t he court will determi

ne wh ether any of the off

enses are le sser-i

ncl uded off enses . If they

are, mul tipl e co nvictio ns are i

m proper. If n

one o f t he o ffen se s a r e le ss er - inc lud ed o ffen se s, t he n mu lt iple
co nvictio ns ma

y stan d. Harvey , 211 Ill . 2d at 389-90, 813 N.E.2d at 194-95. We consi der this is sue de novo ." Peop l e v . Joh ns on , 368 Ill . App. 3d

1146, 1163 (2006), citin g Pe o ple v. Peacock , 359 Il l . Ap p. 3d 32 6, 331 ( 2005)
. Th e ch ar gin g- inst rume nt ap pr o ac h is u se d t o de t er mine w he t he rt he r e a r e le ss er - in clude d off enses . Peop l e v . K

ol ton , 2 19 I ll. 2d 3 53, 360 -6 1 ( 200 6) . “T he cha rg ing[- ]inst ru ment approach l ooks to t he al

le gations i

n the ch argin g in strumen t t o see whether the descri ption of the greater offense contain s a ‘b

road foundation’ or ‘mai

n outli ne’ of the le sser off ense.” Kol

ton , 219 Ill . 2d at 361. Under the ch

argi ng- i nstrumen t approach, the dec i sion con cern i ng w hether a n of f en se is a l ess erin cl uded offense in

volves a cas e-by-case

de term i na ti on “usi ng the f actual desc

ripti on of the cha

rged offense in the in dictment.” Kol

ton , 219 Ill . 2d at 367. “A l esser off ense w ill be ‘includ ed’ in the charged off en se i f the f actual des cri p t ion o f the char ged offense des cr ibes, in a br oa d wa y, t he conduct ne ce ss ary

f or th e c om

m i ss i on of the l es ser of f en se an d a ny el em en ts n ot expl ic itl y s et f orth in t he in dictment can

reasonabl

y b e i nf erred.” Kol

ton , 21 9 I ll. 2 d a t 36 7. Fina lly, if it is determi ned that a particul

ar off ense i s a lesser-i

ncl uded off ense of the charged cr ime, t he evide nce mus t be1-05-1087

-20-

exam in ed to s ee i f i t su pp orts a c onv i cti on of the less er-i

nc l uded off en se. Kol ton , 219 Ill . 2d at 361, ci ting People v . Novak , 163 Il l . 2d 93, 1 08 (19 94). In th i s c as e, Cs as za

r w as ch arge d a s f oll ows i n th e ch argi

n g i n str um en t: "Co unt 2: Sol

i ci tation of M urder f or Hi re i n th at C sa sz ar , w i

th intent t hat the off

ense of fi rst degree murder be com mi tt ed, to wit: that Moni ca Crisa n be kil

le d, solici ted undercover ATF

agent Mark Shaf

fer to comm it sai d off ense of fi rst degree murder, pursuan t to an ag r ee men t o r

co nt r ac t fo rmo ne y. Co unt 3: Sol

i ci tati on of Mu rd er i n th at C sa sz ar , w i

th i n te nt t hat t he
o ff enseof f irst degree m

urder be comm

itted, it wi

t: t hat Moni ca Cris an be ki ll ed, requested James

A nd ers on to com m i t sai d of f en se of f i rst deg ree m urder. Co unt 4: Solici

tation of Murder i

n that Csaszar , wit h intent t hat t he offense of f

irst degree m

ur der be com

mi tt ed, it wi

t: t hat Moni ca Cris an be kille d, re qu ested

un derc ov er A TG ag en t Ma rk Shaf f er to
com m i t sai d of f en se of f i rst deg ree m urder."

A. Mul tiple Convi

ctions f or t he Sam

e Phy si cal Act Csaszar argues that the two charges f or solic itation of

murder, counts III and IV, v i ol ate t he
on e- ac t, one -cr

i me doctri ne be ca us e the s ol i ci

tati on of mur der co nvictio ns in

volv e the sam e acts. Our reviewof the ch arg i ng i ns trum en t i nd i ca testha t the two s ol i ci

tati on of murder ch ar ge s a r e id en t ica l,1-05-1087

-21-

except count III alle ges that Csaszar requested that A nde rson com m i t Cri san 's m urder a nd c ount IV al le ges th at C sasz ar re que st ed t hat Agent Shaffer co mmi t Crisa n's murd er . We must det er mine whether Csas zar 's so licit at io n o f And er so n a nd Sh affe rco nsis t ed o f a s ing le ph y si ca l ac t or s ep arate acts. See Harvey

, 21 1 I l l . 2d

at 3 89 . O ur

re v i ew of th e f ac ts i n th i s c as e i

n di ca tes th at Csa szar init ially approac he d A nde rson and requested

that he m urder C ri san . An derson, however, told Csasza r that he di d not commi

t murders and, i

nstead, i ntroduced him

to undercover Age

nt Shaf fer at a later date. Wh en Csaszar

me t Agent Shaffer , he re que st ed t hat Agent Shaffer murd er Crisa n. We find Csaszar' s i

ni tial request that An

derson m urderCri san

constituted

one a ct of s oli ci tation of m urder, and t hat Csas zar 's lat er meet ingwit h Agent Shaffer and request that he murder Cri san cons tituted a
sec ond act of so licitat ion o f murde r. The la w is cl ear that mul

tiple convi

ctions are i

mproper i f they
areba sed on pre ci sel

y the s am e ph y sical act. Rodriguez , 169 Ill . 2d at 186. In this case, we f

in d that t he evidenc e in the re co rd est ablishes t hat t her e we re t wo so licitat ions on dif ferent dates, of d iff

er ent peo ple, t o mu rd er Mo nica Cr isan, a nd there f ore, the c onv

i cti ons werebased on two dif ferent acts. King , 66 Il

l . 2d at 5 66 (the def

i n i ti on of "a ct" i s a ny ove rt or ou twa rd m an i f es tati on that wi l l supp ort
a different o ffe ns e)
. Ac co r di ng ly, wehol d C sa sz ar' s tw o con

vi cti ons f or s ol i ci tati on of m urder d o not vi olate the sam

e phy si cal act test of the one-act, one-crim e doctrine. B. Mul tiple Convi

ctions W hen One Ch arged Off ense i s a Less er-Incl

uded Off ense of An ot her Charged Off

ense Ne xt, we wil

l address Cs as za

r' s a rgu men t tha t the ch arg e of sol i ci tati on of m urder f orhi re, i nv olv i ng A gen t Shaf f er, an d th e ch arge of sol i ci tati on of m ur der, i n v ol v i n g A gen t Sh af f er , c oun ts II and IV, violate the one-act , one-cr im e doct rine b ecause one offense i s a l es ser-i nc l ude d of f en se of1-05-1087

-22-

the othe r off en se. Our re view o f the char ging inst ru ment reveals a m ain out li ne f or bo th of the charged o ff

enses: sol i ci tation of m urder a nd sol i ci tation of m urder for hi

re. The chargi

ng i nstrume nt all eged that (1) Csaszar in tended for the off

ense of fi rst degree murder to be comm itted agai nst Cri san; (2) Csaszar soli ci ted another

person (eithe

r Agent Shaf

fer or An derson) to comm

it the off ense;and (3) Csaszar soli ci ted ano t her per so n pur sua nt t o a n agr eement for money. We no t e t hat t he cri me of sol i ci tation of mur de r is co mplet e w hen t he d efe ndant makes t he request f or anot her to commi

t fi rst degree
m urder. Pe o ple v. Woodard , 367 Ill . App. 3d 304, 317 (2006), citin g Pe o ple v. Sims , 315 Ill . App. 3d 518, 52 1 (200 0). Howev er, the sol i ci tati on of murder f

or hire count contain

s one addi

tional element t hat is not included in the s olicit at ion o f murde r c ou nt s. Aft er re viewing t he cha rg ing i nstruments, wef

i nd tha t the ac ts i n th e c ha rgi ng i ns trum en ts a re th e s am e a nd the of f en se s of
s ol i ci tation of mur der and s olicit at ion o f murde r fo r hire co nt ain the same element s, e xcep t t he off en se of soli ci tation of m urder f or hi re i nc l udes one a ddi tion al elem en t. Compare 720 ILCS 5/8- 1.1(a) (We st 2002 ) wi

th 720 ILCS 5/8-1.2 (a) (W

est 200 2). Speci fi

cally , the solici tation of m

urder f orhi re coun t re quired C sas za

r to sol i ci t Ag en t Shaf f er, pur suan

t to an agree men t or con tract f or mo ne y. We also fi

nd that the evi

dence adduce d at the tr ia l s up po rt ed a co nv iction on the greater offense and on the l

esser-i ncl uded offense . There f

ore, wef i nd tha t the of f en se of sol i ci tation of
m urder, in which Csaszar soli

cited Agent Shaff

er to murder Crisan, i s a less e r- inc l ude d of f en se of soli ci tation of m

urder for hi

re, in whi ch Csaszar soli

ci ted Agent Shaf

fer to murder Cri san

pur sua nt to an agree men t for m oney. Accordin

gly , we aff irm Csaszar' s convi

ction of s oli

ci tation of m

urder f orhi re a nd va ca te h i s s ol i ci tation of murder conv

iction and s entence

because it i s a lesser-i

ncl uded1-05-1087

-23-

off ense of soli ci tation of m

urder for hi

re. The St at e, how ever , r elies o n Peo plev. Vo it , 35 5 I l l . A pp . 3d 10 15 (2 00 4) , to suppor

t i ts
ar gument that t he trial

cour t di d n ot v iolate the one-act, o ne-cri me doctr in e when it entered
co nvictio ns and i

m posed sen tenc es on Csa sza r f or the two sol

i ci tation of m urd er a nd theon e sol i ci tation of mur der for hire. In Vo it , the defe ndan t argued t hat

he r con vi cti ons f or s ol i ci tation of murder for hire and her attem

pted m urder a re b ase d on the sa

me ph y sical act. Vo it , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 1029. The Vo it cou

rt reviewed the chargi

ng docum

ents and determ

in ed that it dif

feren tiated between the charged o ff

enses. Vo it , 3 55 I ll. App. 3d a t 102 9. The co ur t fou nd t hat t he de fendant
was ch arg ed wi th s ol i ci tation of m urder f or hi re based on h

er encouragem

ent of Kauf

ma nn, an d that t he de fendant wa s c ha r ge d w it h a t t emp t ed mur de rby p r o vid ing Ka ufma nn n o t o nly the mone y, b ut also per so nal informat ion abo ut t he vict im, a pho t og ra ph o f the victim, a nd t he v i cti m' s c ar key , a cts that t he Vo it court f

ound a re bey ond those required

to prove s oli

ci tation of m urder f or hi re. Vo it , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 10 29
. Ac co r di ng ly, the Vo it cou rt f oun d th at th e def en da n t en gage d i n se pa ra te acts, and, t her efo re , t he trial court did not v

i ola te the on e-act, one-cr

i me doctri ne . Vo it , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 10 29. Vo it , however, i s di stin

guis hab le from the present case. The Vo it court rev i ewed a ca se w here a de f en da n t wa s ch arge d w i

th and conv icted of soli

ci tation of m

urder for hi

re and of attempted

fi rst degree m urder. Her e, we a re re viewing a c ase wher e t he de fendant was cha rged with an

d convi cted of so licitat ion o f murde r a nd o f solicit at ion o f murde r fo r hire . While t he de fendant in Vo it wa s charged with a nd conv icted of att em

pted fi rst degree murder, we note that at tempt ed fi rst de gree murder was not an o ffense cha rg ed in Cs asz ar 's cas e. We also note t hat the el em ents of the off

enses1-05-1087

-24-

of so licitat ion o f murde r a ndof so licitat ion o f murde r fo r hire ar e differe nt fro m the e lements of t he offense of attempted fi

rst degree murder. Compare 720 ILCS 5/8-1.1(a), 8-1.2(a) (West 20 02 ) w i th 720 ILCS 5/ 8- 4( a) (West 20 02 ). W i th th e s oli ci tati on of f ense s, th e def

en da n t re qu ests or pro cures another pers on to co mm it the m

urder, but with the off

ense of attempt, t he def

endan t, rat her than another perso n, t akes a substantial s tep t oward the commission of a speci fi c offense, in thi s case
m urder. Com

pare 7 20 IL CS 5/8 -1.1(a) , 8-1.2 (a) (West 2002)wi th 720 ILCS 5/8-4( a) (West 200 2). Most impor t ant ly, in Vo it the reviewi ng court was att em

pting to determi

ne if the def

endan t violated t he o ne- act , o ne- cr ime doc t rine be ca us e t he co nvic t io ns w er e c ar ve d fr o m t he sa me ac t , wh ile t his courtis at t empt ingt o d et er mine if the tr ial cour t violated the o ne-act, one-crime doctrine (1) because t he co nvictio ns we re car ved fr om t he sa me act, and (2) beca

use the off

ense of soli ci tation of m

urder is a le ss er - inc lu de d o ffe ns e o f so lici t at io n o f mu r de rfo rhir e. Co ns eq ue nt ly, gi ven the f act this court is co mpar ing different offense s wit h different element s, a nd is at t empt ing t o d et er mine, unlike t he Vo it
cou rt, if one of the ch arg ed of f en se s, f orwhich t her e wa s a c onvict ion, is a l esser-incl uded offense of another charged off

ense, f or which there w as a convi

ct ion, we find t hat t he fact s in Vo it are dis tingui shab le from the fac ts in this case. Fin ally, the reco rd reveals that dur in g the fi rst t rial , t he j ury f

ound Cs aszar not gui lt y o f sol i ci tation of m urder f or hi re i n the ch arge n am i ng J am es A nde rson . T he r ec o r d a lso r ev ea ls that dur ingt he se co nd t r ial, the j udg e f oun d C sa sz ar g

ui l ty of the ch arg e of so licitat ion o f murde r in t he chargena m i ng J am es A nde rson . In th

i s ca se, w e hav e f

ound s oli ci tation of m urder to b e a l

ess erin cl uded off ense of soli ci tation of m

urder for hi

re. Accordin

gly , because C sasza

r was f oun d n ot guil ty of the ch

arge of soli

ci tation of m

urderfor hire in t he cha rg e naming Ja mes Ande rso n dur ing1-05-1087

-25-

t he f i rs t tri al , an

d b ec au se sol i ci tation of murder is a l

esser-incl uded offense

of soli ci tation of m

urder f orhi re, we vacate the sol

i ci tation of m urder c onv

i cti on. Peopl e v . Hen

ry , 204 Ill . 2d 267, 289 (2003 ), quot in

g Pe o ple v. Kna ff

, 196 Ill . 2d460, 471 (2001) (" '[T]he acqui tt al of a def endan t o n an i nd i ctm en t f oran off ense whi ch i ncl udes lesser off

enses, operat es also as an ac quittal, an d as a bar to an y su bs eq ue nt pros ecution, of

al l i nc l ude d les ser of

f en se s of which he might have been convi cted on the i ndi ctmen t cha rgi ng th e hi ghe r off en se' "). III. Aggrav

ati ng S en tenc i ng F actors Ne xt, C sas zar argues that the trial court considered im

proper aggravating f

actors and, t her efo re , t his co ur t sho uld r emand t his matt er t o t he trial court for a new s entenci

ng he arin g. The tria l court ha s broad discre

tion ary powers in choo sing t he ap pr o pr iat e s en t en ce a d efe nd an t sho uld recei ve. People v . Jones , 168 Ill . 2d 367, 373 (1 995). "A reasone d judgm ent as to t he proper sentence t o be impose d must be bas ed u po n t he pa rt icular circu msta nces of e ach individua l case a nd depends upon m an y f actors, i nc l udi ng th e def endan t's c redi bi l i ty, d em ean or, general

moral character,
men t alit y, social

envi ronment, habi

ts and age." Pe opl

e v . D on ath , 357 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 57 , 72 (20 05), citing People v . Perruquet , 68 Ill . 2d 149, 154 ( 1977). "T he def endan t's h i story , character,
re habilitat ivepo t ent ial, t he ser iou sness of t he of f en se , th e n

ee d to pr otec t soc i ety

an d the n ee d f or deterre nc e an d pun i sh men t are all fa ct o r s t o be co nsid er ed in fash ioni ng a sentence." Don

ath, 357 I ll. App
. 3d at 72, citin

g People v . Jones , 2 95 I ll. App. 3d 4 44, 455 (1 998 ). "The re is a st ro ng pre su m ption t hat t he t rial co ur t base d it s sent encing det er minatio n on p ro per legal r eas oning , a nd t he courtis p r es ume d t o ha ve co nsid er ed an y evid en ce in mit iga t io n w hic h is bef ore it. " Don

ath, 35 7 I ll. App. 3d at 72, citin

g Pe o ple v. Pa r t in , 156 Il l . Ap p. 3d 36 5, 373 ( 1987)
. The trial cour t has1-05-1087

-26-

di screti on in im posin g a sentenc e and a rev

ie win g court has the power to disturb the sen tence o nly i f the tri al court ab use d i ts di scre tion
. Jones , 168 Ill . 2d at 373-74. In thi s c as e, th e tri al cou rt con si de red the sta tutory f ac tors i n a ggr avati on a nd i n m i ti ga ti on when i t sen tenc ed Cs asz ar. The tri al

courtf oun d that m an y of the f ac tors e i the r di d n ot ap pl y ordid not weigh in Csaszar' s f

avor and stated that it wo uld co nsider t hos e fact or s aside fro m the p ending unl awful use of weapons

chan ge. Whi le s ect ion 5 -5-3.2(a) o f the Un if ie d Code deli

neates 17 agg ra vat ingfactors that a tr ia l c ourt ma y consider (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(a) (West 1998)), we note that t he court only

dis cussed the f

irst 15 f ac tors an d f oun d that the re

mai ni ng sta tutory f ac tors d i d n ot ap ply to this case. T he t r ial c o ur t sp ec ifica lly dis cu ss ed t he fo llo win g 1 5 fa ct o r s d eline at ed in se cti on 5-5-3.1 of the Uni

fi ed Code: "(a) The f oll owi ng f actors shall be ac cord

ed we i gh t i n f av or of imposing a t er m of impriso nment or may be co nsider ed bythe c ourt as reasons to im

pose a more severe sentence under Section 5-8-1: (1) t he defen

dant's conduct caused

o rt hr ea t en ed se r io us ha r m; (2) t he de fendant re ceived co mpensa t ion f or c ommitt ing t he off ense; (3) the defe

ndan t has a hi story

of pri or deli

nquen cy or crim in al
ac t ivit y; (4) the de f en da nt, by the duti esof hi s of f i ceorby his po sitio n, was obl i ge d to pr event t he pa rt icular offense co mmi t t ed o r t o br ing the off enders com

mi tt in g it to justice ;1-05-1087

-27- ( 5) t he de fen da nt he ld p ub lic off ic e at t he tim

e of the offense ***; (6) t he de fen da nt ut ilize d h is p r o fes sio na l r ep uta ti on or positi on in

the comm

uni ty to commi

t t he off ense ***; (7) t he se nt en ce is ne ces sary to deter others

fro m committ ing the sam e crim e; (8) the defe

ndan t commi tt ed the off

ense aga in st a per s on 60 yea r s o f a ge o ro ld er o rsu ch pe r so n's pr o pe r t y; (9) the defendant comm

itted t he off

ense agai nsta per so n who is p hys ica lly ha nd ica pp ed o rsu ch pe r so n's pr o pe r t y; (10) by reason of an

ot her i ndi vi dual 's actual

or perceived race , col or, creed, reli

gion, an cestry, gen

der, sexual

or ienta t ion, ph

y si cal or me ntal di sab i l i ty, or n ati on al or igin, t he de fendant co mmi t t ed t he off ense ***; (11) the of

f en se took pl

ace i n a pl ace of worshi

p or on th e grounds of a place of worshi p, ***; (12) t he de fen da nt wa s c o nvic t ed o f a fe lo ny co mmit t ed wh ile he was released on ba

il or his own

reco gnizanc e pen

di ng tri al f or a prior fel ony a nd was conv

icted of such pri

or felony, ***; (13) th e def

en da n t com m i tted or a ttem pte d to co mmi

t a felony whi le he was we arin

g a bul le tpro of ves

t. ***;1-05-1087

-28- (14) the de f en da nt h el d a pos i ti on of trust or supervis ion ***; (15) t he de fendant co mmi t t ed a n offense re late d t o t he activ ities of a n orga ni zed g ang." 73 0 ILC S 5/5-5 -3.2(a)(We st 1998 ). The t rial co ur t re viewed eac h of t he afo re mentio ned 1 5 fact or s and spe ci f i cal l y f ound th at f actors 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 15 were n ot applic abl

e to t hi s case. Regardi

ng f actors 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, and 14, t he trial court made the foll owing f in din gs: "[1] In a ggr avat ion, t he de fendant 's co nd uc t ca us ed or threatened seri ous harm . You t hreatened to kil l Monic a Cri san, that yo uwanted her

killed, no t just t hre at ened , t hat you w er e pa ying
s omeo ne to ki

l l he r. [2 ] Th e d ef en da nt rec ei ve d c om pe ns ati on f or co mmi t t ing thi s of f en se . You

di d n ot rec ei ve com pe ns ati on. You
were gi vi ng som eon e c om pe ns ati on t o kill her. [3] The def

endan t has
a histo ry o f prio r d elinquenc y. Yo u did have t he pe nding unl awful use of wea po n in this co ur t ro om, and that w as the only case that you had prior to t hi s. * * * Nu mbe r7, t ha t t he se nt en ce is n ec es sa ry to de ter oth

er f rom com mit t ingt his same o ffense, t he sa me crime. Cer t ainly the
comm uni ty an d society needs to know that human li fe i s val id. * * * Numb er 12, t hat t he de fendant was co nvicte d o f a felony wh ile he was released on ba

il on hi s or her ownr ec o gn iza nc e p en din g t r ial. Yes, you were pending trial in this very sam e court roo m. The case1-05-1087

-29- was a fel ony a nd eventually

it turned to a misd eme anor. I t just so happen ed it was t he v ic t i

m wh o wa s te sti

f y i n g agai n st y ou, n ot a coin ci dence. * * * [ 14 ] Th

e def en da n t h el d a pos i ti o n o f t rust or
su pe rvi si on but not li mi ted to fam il y m em ber as des crib ed to be a day
care or baby si tt er. You were not in

such a posi

tion, but y

ou were an em ploye e of thi s person ." We f i n d th at t he re co rd clear ly esta blishes t hat t he t rial co ur t meticu lou sly weighed t he statutory factors in mi tigation an

d aggravation. W

e note that nothin

g in the record suggests that t he trial court wei ghed one aggrav ating f actor more heavi

ly than an ot her f actor. Fu rther more , w e n

ote that there is

a strong presumpti on that t he trial court based i

ts sentenci

ng decisi on on proper legal reasoni ng. Don ath, 35 7 Ill. App. 3d at 72; Pa r t in , 156 I ll. A pp . 3d at 37 3. T ha t pr es ump t io n is strengthened

by the fac t t hat Csas zar 's co ncur re nt sent ences w ere wi thi n the perm

i ssi bl e statutory sent encing ra nge. Csas zar 's 30- yea r s en ten cef or hi s c onv

i cti on f or s ol i ci tati on of mur de rfo rhir e is wit hin the mi drangeof the 2 0- to 40-y

ear s en tenc e tha t the tri al court can i m pose u nde r the statutory guidel in es. See 720 ILCS 5/8-1.2(b) (West 1998). We need n ot consider whether the court abused its d iscre t ion whe n it impo sed Csas zar 's 20 -year sent ence for his so licitat ion o f murde r c onvict ions because we have v

acated t hose convictions. See 720 ILCS 5/8- 1.1(b) ( West 19 98 )
. Co ns eq ue nt ly, the record in this case dem onstrates tha

t the tri al cou rt ca ref ul l y con si de red a w i deran

geof f actors when sen tenc i ng C sas zar. People v . Bowman , 35 7 Il l . A pp. 3d 2 90, 304

(20 05)(tri

al cou rt di d n ot abuse i ts d i scre ti on i n se n ten ci n g th e def en da n t w ithi n the statutory

ran ge wh ere the tri al

court considered

mi tigation an

d aggravation e

vi dence, the presen

tence i nve stiga t ion, t he de fendant 's1-05-1087

-30-

rehab i l i tativ e poten tia l , and l etters f

rom th e def endan t's c oworkers a

nd f am i l y ). Nonetheless, Csaszar argues tha t t he trial court abus ed its dis cr et io n in s en t en cin g h im because i t consi dered : (1) ev

i den ce that his con

duct ca use d or threa

tene d seri ous harm ; (2 ) t he unl awful use of a wea po n char ge; ( 3) his st at us a s an immi gr ant ; and ( 4) evidenc e co ncer ning t he ef f ect the cri me had on

Cri san 's l i f e. We rev

i ew ea ch of the the se f

our conten

tions b elow. A. Se ri ous Ha rm Reg ar ding t he fir st st at ut o ry a gg ra vat ing fa ct o r - -- t he d efe n da n t' s c ond uc t ca us ed or t hre at ene d s erious h

arm (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(a)(1) (West 1998)) --- Csaszar argues tha t t he trial courtimpr o pe r ly

focused on the f

act that he in

tended for Cri san to die, rather t han o n t he nat ur e and t he ex tent of the f orce he auth

ori zed S ha f

f er t o use to comm

it the m urder. The Stat e argues that wh ile it i s true that t he trial court ma y no t r ely u po n a fac t o rimplic it in the off ense i n sen tenci ng a de fen da nt , t ha t do es no t mea n t ha t ev er y ment io n o f su ch fac t s s ub jec t s a se nt en ce t o r ev er sa l. Ge ne r ally, a s en

ten ci n g c our t m ay c o nsid er as

a j ustif i cation f or im posi ng a m ore sev ere sentence evi dence that the off

ender's conduct caused

or threa tene d seri ous h

arm . Bowman, 35 7 I ll. App. 3d at 304 . The trial

court ma y c onsi der the nature of the off ense, i ncl udin g the ci rcumstances and e xt ent of each

el em ent as comm

itted, as a f actor when

i m posi ng a sen tenc e. Bowman, 35 7 I ll. App. 3d at 304, ci

ting People v . Mil

le r , 225 Ill . App. 3d 92, 104 (1992). Ho wever, i t is wel l s ettled that i t is error for a judge to co nsi

der in aggravation a

factor that is

in herent i n the off ense f or which t he def endan t is be i ng s en tenc ed. People v . Gonzalez , 151 Ill . 2d 79, 83- 84 ( 199 2) , c iting Peo ple v. Fe rgu son , 132 Ill. 2d 8 6, 9 7 (1 989 ); Peo ple v. Saldi var , 11 3 I l l . 2d

25 6, 2 72 (1 98 6) . Y et, not every in stance i n w hi ch an ag gra va ti ng f ac tor isim

prope r ly co nsid er ed in se nt en cin g c alls fo rau t o mat ic1-05-1087

-31-

r ev er sa l, an d t he ca se s ma ke it cl ear that thi s rul e sh oul d not b e app l i ed ri

gi dl y . Pe opl e v . B ur n ette , 325 Ill . App. 3d 792, 809 (2001), citin g People v . Saldi

var , 113 Il

l . 2d 256 , 268-6 9 (198 6). Csaszar cites Peo ple v. Lat ona , 268 Il l . Ap p. 3d 71 8, 730 ( 1994) , to support his argum ent that his sentence

shoul d be rev erse d an

d rem anded f or anew s ent encing he ar ing. I n Lat ona , t he de fendant argued that t hat the trial

co ur t im pr o pe r ly co nsid er ed as an ag gr av at ing fac t o rev ide nc e t ha t his conduct threatened seri ous harm . The Lat ona co ur t fou nd t hat t he t rial co ur t foc use d o nly on t he typeof be at ing t hat t he de fendant want ed J or dan t o inflict u po n t he vi cti m . Lat ona , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 730. The tr ia

l c ourt found that

t he t ype o f beat ing t he victim was t o r ece ive was t he de fendant 's plan befo re t he de fendant and J or dan a gr eed t hat t he vi cti m shoul d be

kil l ed. Lat ona , 26 8 I ll. App. 3d at 730. The Lat ona co ur t fo un d t ha t aft er t he y ag r ee d t o kill t he vic t im, there wa s n o di scus si on re gar ding the m

an ner in which Sha moon was to be ki l l ed. Lat ona , 2 68 I ll. App. 3d a t 730 . T he Lat ona cou

rt al so f oun d that the on

l y f ac torthat the

tria l courtcould have rel

ie d on was the threat of de ath an d th at th at was i mproper . Lat ona , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 730. The Lat ona court further fou nd that t he t r ial c o ur t did no t mer ely me nt io n in passi ng that the defe

ndan t's conduct threatened seri ous ha r m, bu t t he co ur t ap pe ar ed t o giv e t his fa ct o rt he sa me w eig ht as t he o t he rfac t o r s lis t ed in agg ra vat ion. Lat ona , 268 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 730. Consequen

tly, the Lat ona cour t reaso ned that because it could n ot concl ude that the weigh

t t he trial court pla ced on this im proper factor was i

n si gn i f i ca n t, the c aus e was

rem anded f or a ne w se nten ci ng h eari ng. Lat ona , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 730. While we ar e mindful of t he f ac ts in Lat ona an d it s ho ldin g, we be lieve t ha t t he fac t s in t his
case establ i sh

that the tria l court em ploye d a m

ore ba l anced a pproach duri ng s en tenc i ng b eca use here t he t r ial c o ur t met icu lo us ly we igh ed t he ag gr av at ing an d mit iga t ing fac t o r s a nd did not give un due1-05-1087

-32-

wei ght to an i m proper f actor. W e b el

i ev e th at Pe o ple v. Jack son , 319 Ill . App. 3d 110 (2001), has f ac ts that are

more ana logous to t he f

acts in this case. In Jack son , the defen dant argued that the tr ia

l courterredby

cons i deri ng i n a ggrav ati on the ha rm caus ed to the v

i cti m . Jack son , 319 Ill . App. 3d at 114. The Jack son

court found that al

though the trial

court observed that def

endan t's conduct caused t he vi ctim' s har m, t he r eco rd clear ly revealed t hat t he co ur t re lied upo n ot her agg ra vat ing f actors in sen tenc i ng d ef endan t, i.e. , the n

eed to protect s oci ety

f rom d ef endan t, def endan t's “ history of pr ior delinque ncy,” and t he need “ to deter ot hers f

rom comm

ittin g the sam e crim e.” Jack son , 319 I ll. App. 3d at115. The Jack son court hel d that any wei ght that t he trial

court pla ced on the f

act that t he de fend ant 's c o ndu ct ca us ed har m wa s ins ignifi cant and di d not result in

a greater sentence. Jack son , 31 9 I ll. App. 3d a t 115 . Ac co rd ingly, the Jack son court rejected defen

dant's argum

ent that his ca se h ad to be rem anded f or resenten

ci ng. Jack son , 319 Ill . App. 3d at 115. In this case, like J ac ks on , w e n

ote th at th e a l th oug h th e tr i al cou rt m en ti on ed th e h ar m to Crisa n, it also co nsider ed five o t her st at ut or y aggr avat ingf actors an d c ons i de red

the m i ti ga ti ng f ac tor of Cs as za r' s l ac k of cr imina l his t o ry. Nothing i n the record in

dic ates that t he trial

court gave greater weight to this

factor than to o ther factors. We note that a t rial judge 's stateme

nts at sentenci

ng m ay not be co nsid er ed in

i sol ati on. Pe o ple v. He nd r ix , 250 Ill . App. 3d 88, 105 (1993), citin g Peo ple v. Mc Gl as son , 21 9 I l l . A

pp . 3d 25 2 ( 19 91 ). W

h i l e acc ep ti

n g C sa sz ar ' s c on

ten ti on th at th e tria l court
co nsider ed a n impro per agg ra vat ing fact or , bu t viewing t he sent encing hear ing as a who le, w e find it unne cessary

to reman d for resentenc in

g. See People v . Gil

li am , 172 Ill . 2d 484, 521 (1996 ) (where t he rev i ew i ng cou r t ca n d et er min e fro m the r eco rd t hat t he we ight t he t rial co ur t place d o n t he impr o pe r ly

con si de red ag gra va ti ng f ac torw as so in

signifi cant that it did n

ot le ad to a great er1-05-1087

-33-

sentence , it is not necessa ry to remand fo r r esent encing); People v . Garry , 32 3 I ll. App. 3d 292, 303 (2001) (f i ndi ng th at a rev i ew of the re cord rev

eals tha t the ag grav

ati ng f actor of bodi l y ha rm di d n ot le ad to a gr eat er se nte nce); People v . Burge , 254 Ill . App. 3d 85, 91 (1993) ("[w]hen the w ei gh t pla ced on an i m pr operl y con si dere d agg ra v ati n g f ac tor i s s o i

n si gn i f i ca n t th at i t di d n ot l ead to a greater se n ten ce , a re man d f or re se n ten ci n g i s n ot r equired") ; He nd r ix , 250 Ill . App. 3d at 105 (f i n di n g th at th e tr i al j udge ' s state

men ts summarizing t he re levant fact or s do es no t indicat e t hat t he
co ur t foc use d pr imarily

on t he fact t hat t he de fendant 's conduct caused the death of the dec eas ed). As we h av e al ready f ound, our revi ew of the re cord

in dic ates that the trial

court careful

ly sum ma rized t he statutory

agg ra vat ing and mit igat ingfactors, even those f actors t hat did n

ot appl y to this case. Acco r di ng ly, we f

i nd th at whi l e the

tria l court m en tion ed th at Csa sza

r wan ted Crisan

dead , th e referen ce wasi ns i gni f i can t and i t di d not lead to a gr

eater s en tenc e; there f

ore, it d oe s no t war ra nt reversal . See Bu

rnette , 32 5 Ill. App. 3d at 811 ; Jack son , 319 Ill . App. 3d at 115.

B. Prior F el

ony Con vi cti on Ne xt, re ga

rdi n g th e tw el th st at ut or y aggr avat ing fact or -- -a pr ior felony convicti on (730 I LCS 5/5-5-3.2(a)( 12) ( We st 19 98 ) ) - - - Cs as za rar gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t inc o rr ec t ly considered

thi s f ac tor because he h

ad not been conv

icted of a fel

ony. Cs aszar argues t hat t he pe nding case f or t he un la wful use of weapon ch

arge had b een reduced to a misdem eanor and that he was

never convi

cted of that off ense. The

Stat e argues thatthe

tri al cou rt m ay con si de r pr i orcri m i na l acti vi ty a s a n onstatutory aggra va tin g f actor. In this case, we note that, in

mi tigation, the trial

court specifi

cally stated that Csaszar's l

ack of cri m i na l hi story wou l d b e ta

ke n i nto co ns ide

ration. We al

so note t hat the trial

court , when1-05-1087

-34-

dis cussi ng thi s f actor in aggrava

tion, stated t hat t he p end ing u nlaw ful u se o f a weapon charge was not a f elony be caus e i t had be en reduc ed to a m

i sdemean or. Theref

ore , the v er y poi n ts that Csaszar argues t he trial

court should have considered are in deed the very

points that the trial

court stated t hat it co nsider ed a t t he sent encing he ar ing. H ow ever , e ven if the t rial co ur t co nsider ed t he m i sdem ea nor unl awful use of a weapon c

harge, whi

ch Csaszar

was nev er convicted of, there is no erro r because in ag gr ava t io n t he t ria l co ur t may co nsid er evid enc e o f a de f en da n t' s prior m i sc on du ct, even

though tha t m i sc ond uc t may not have resul

ted in prosecuti on or co nvi ction. See Pe o ple v. Da vis , 205 I ll. 2d 349, 367 (2002), citin

g Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 176 Ill . 2d 217, 255 (1997) and People v . Lego , 11 6 I ll. 2d 323 , 3 46- 47 ( 198 7) . Ac co rd ingly, we find t hat t he t r ial c o ur t did no t ab us e it s d isc r et io n w he n it considered Csaszar' s unl

awful use of a weapon c

harge. C. Imm igran t St atus Ne xt, Csas zar co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t impro per ly f oc use d o n t he fact t hat he and Cris an were Ro manian imm

igra nt s who had c ome t o t he Un i ted Sta tes of A meri ca . C sa sz ar

ci tes to several po rt ions of the se

nten ci ng r ecord to sup

port thi s arg

um en t. The St at e ar gue s t hat Csas zar 's ar gument is based on a gross an

d dis in genuous m

is character iza t io n of t he t rial judg e's c omment s at t he sentenci ng he arin g. We agree wi

th the Stat e. Indeed, our rev

i ew of the record indi

cates that t he trial

court ma de re fere nce t o C sasz ar and Cr i sa n ' s R om an i an b ackg rou n dswh en i t m ade th e f oll owi n g s tate men t: "Monica Cr isa n is a w oman

f rom yo ur o wn co un t ry. S he ca me to the United Stat es. She has a hus ba nd a nd a chi l d. You knew that she was a wif

e a nd mo t he ran d h er an d h er hu sba nd we r e n o t o nly1-05-1087

-35- t ryingto mak e a

b ett er li fe f or t hem sel ves h ere in the Uni ted St ates butfo ro t he rpe o pl e f

r o m he ro wn co un t ry. You cam e h erealso f

rom t he same co unt ry. T hey want ed to help you . S o t his per so n who
comesfro m t he s ame t ype o f b a ckg ro und w her e you say t her e's violen ce i n y our coun try where y ou came f rom, where peopl e need

to kn ow ri gh t f rom wr ong , she came he re also t o ha ve a bet t er lif e and she an d he r hu sb and wan

ted to le t you h av e a b etter li f

e." We fi nd the trial

court 's stateme

nts fa il ed to reveal that Csaszar's or Cri san' s i mm igran t stat us was negativel

y c onsi dered. To t he contrary, the trial judge 's stateme

nts reveal that she saw

both Csaszar and Cri san as

wanti ng a better li fe an

d that Cr isan t rie d t o help Cs as za r a chie ve a bet t er life in the Uni ted St ates, but that Csaszar lacke d an ap pr ec iat io n fo rt he ir

co mmon st ru ggle a nd go als and in steadsoli ci ted ot hers to murder her. The tri al cou rt' s state men ts wer e m

ade i n re sp on se to Csas zar 's allocu t ion in which he r efer ence d his bac kgr ou nd and growin

g up with n

o morals . The trial
co ur t 's st at ement s do not re veal a bias a gainst imm igra nt s; ra t her , t hey merely po intout that the court noted that Csaszar and Crisan were f rom the sam

e coun try . Ac co rd ingly, we find t hat Csas zar 's
ar gument t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t us ed his im mi grant status as an ag gr av at ing fac t o rin se nt en cin g h im is dev oi d of meri t. D. E vid en ce o f Ha r m t o Vic t im Csas zar maintains that the trial judge erred in characterizi

ng hi s cri me s as havi

ng destroyed t he Crisans ' busi

nessand p er so nal lives. Ho weve r, Csas zar makes t he fo llowing ac kn o wle dg men t in hi s bri ef :1-05-1087

-36- "Cri san suffer ed g re at anxiet y after learni n g th at Csaszar had b een accused of t ryingt o hi re somone to kil l h er. Her vi ctim

im pact st at ement i

n di ca tes th at th e i n ci den t ev en tual l y l ed to ar gu men ts w i th her h us b an d, e xtr aord i na ry vi gi l an cean d c onc ern f or th e s af ety of hersel f and he r daug hter, a nd th e cl osi ng of her bu si ne ss." No t wit hst anding these undisputed, ackno wledged facts, Csaszar argues t hat the t rial cour t's sta t ement that he destroyed Crisan' s lif e was not support ed by

the evi dence. The St at e mainta inst hat t he co ur t 's
com m en ts were properly

based on the e

vi dence. W

e fi nd that Csaszar' s argum

en t is c o mple t ely de vo id of m erit. Gi ven t he unr ebut t ed fac t s t hat Csas zar 's co nduc t impact ed C risan's lif e, we findthat t he t r ial ju dg e d id n o t impr o pe r ly ch ar ac te rize or exagge

rate t he h arm to Crisa

n. Accordi

ngl y, we hol d tha t the tri al court did not ab

use i ts di scre tion i n s en tenc i ng C sas zar. I V. E xt r ac t io n o f Blo o d a nd DN A P r o file Fin ally, Csaszar contends that the com pul sor y ex tracti on a nd i nc l us i on of h i s D NA i n sta te and national dat abases, pu rsuant to sect ion 5-4- 3 of t he Unif ied Code o f Corr ect ions (730 I LC S 5/5-4- 3 (West 2002)), vi olates his fo ur t h a men dme nt r igh t t o be fr ee fr o m un r ea so na ble sea rc hes a nd seizures. In Pe o ple v. Ga r vin , 219 Ill . 2d 104, 122-24 (2 006 ), t he I lli nois S upr eme Co ur t affirmed t he
con sti tuti on al i ty of t he st at ut e au t hor izing extraction an

d storing of DNA . The Ga r vin courtnoted that a co nvicte d felo n's pr ivacy right s ar e "su bs t antia ll y reduce d due to his status as a conv icted fel on." Ga r vin , 219 Ill . 2d at 124. T he Ga r vin co ur t als o he ld

t hat "t he St at e's inter est in effect ive
cr ime inves t iga t io ns a nd p re ven t io n, as ad van ce d by s ec t io n 5- 4- 3, o ut we ighs de fe ndant's pri vacy in terest as a convicted fel

on." Ga r vin , 219 Ill . 2d at 125. T he Ga r vin co ur t re ject ed t he de fendant 's1-05-1087

-37-

constitut ional

challen ge as foll ows: "We al

so hold that

the DNA sam

pli ng an d database m

andated by section 5-4-3 i s con sti tution al both a s ap

pli ed i n de f endan t's c ase and on i ts f ace ." Ga r vin , 21 9 I ll. 2d at 125. Accordingl

y, f oll owing Ga r vin , we hold that secti on 5-4-3 does not violate Csas za r's fo ur t h a men dme nt r igh t t o be fr ee fr o m un r ea so na ble se ar ch es an d s eiz ur es an d is co nst it ut io na l. CONCLUSION For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t he trial court 's conv

iction f or solic itation of

murder f or hire that in volv ed A ge n t S haf

fer, i s af fi rmed, b ut t he trial

court 's conv

iction f or solic itation of

murder that in volv ed An ders on, an

d the conv i cti on f or sol i ci tation of m urder th at i nv olv ed A gen t Shaf f er are vacated. A f f i rm ed i n pa rt a n d r ev er se d i n pa rt. QUINN , P.J., an

d MUR PHY, J ., conc

ur.