2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

No. 2-23-0393 

Order filed June 18, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

OF ILLINOIS, ) of Lake County. 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 22-CF-1713 

) 

JOSE L. SALAS-BARRAGAN, ) Honorable 

) Daniel B. Shanes, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Schostok and Mullen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The record reflected that the trial court considered all pertinent mitigating factors 

and defendant’s rehabilitative potential in sentencing him upon his plea of guilty to 

possession of cannabis with the intent to deliver. Also, the court properly 

considered the actual amount of cannabis defendant possessed, even though it 

exceeded the quantity upon which the offense was based.

¶ 2 Defendant, Jose L. Salas-Barragan, appeals his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment 

imposed after he pled guilty to possession with the intent to deliver more than 2000 grams but not 

more than 5000 grams of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2020)). He asserts that the trial court 

committed plain error when it (1) failed to properly consider mitigating evidence and his 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 2 - 

rehabilitative potential and (2) improperly considered the actual amount of cannabis he was found 

to possess, which exceeded the amount upon which the offense was based. Because the court 

properly considered the mitigating evidence, defendant’s rehabilitative potential, and the actual 

amount of cannabis possessed by defendant, it did not commit plain error. Thus, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with one count of possessing with the intent to deliver more 

than 5000 grams of cannabis, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 550/5(g) (West 2020)), and one count 

of possessing more than 5000 grams of cannabis, a Class 1 felony (720 ILCS 550/4(g) (West 

2020)). Defendant was on probation for another offense when he was arrested. 

¶ 5 After pretrial negotiations, defendant agreed to plead guilty to possessing with the intent 

to deliver more than 2000 grams but not more than 5000 grams of cannabis, a Class 1 felony (720 

ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2020)). The trial court granted the State’s motion to nol-pros the simple 

possession charge.

¶ 6 The following occurred at the guilty plea hearing. The State advised the trial court that 

defendant had agreed to plead guilty to an amended charge of possession with the intent to deliver 

and that there was no agreement regarding the sentence. The court then admonished defendant

that a Class 1 felony was punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison, and probation was a possibility

(see 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-30(a), (d) (West 2020)).

¶ 7 The State’s factual basis stated that, during a traffic stop, the police found defendant in 

possession of “over 5,000 grams of cannabis.” Defendant stipulated to the factual basis, and the 

court found it to be sufficient. The court then set the matter for sentencing.

¶ 8 The following occurred at the sentencing hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the trial 

court asked the prosecutor how much cannabis defendant was found to possess. The prosecutor 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 3 - 

answered that “[i]t was approximately 10,000 grams, 23.5 pounds.”1

 When the court asked 

defense counsel if that weight was correct, counsel answered, “That’s right.”

¶ 9 In his allocution, defendant stated that he was sorry, that “[he] [could not] undo what [he] 

did or what was done,” and that he was there “to solve it and get it over with and hopefully never 

look back to that again.” When the trial court asked defendant what he thought he “did,” defendant 

responded that he possessed cannabis and broke the law. When the court asked him why he broke 

the law, defendant implied that his life was not “so good, *** professionally and financially,” that 

he had looked for “a break,” and “that one time led to this being here where [he] [was] at now.” 

The court responded that “a guy doesn’t just have one time with 20 pounds.”

¶ 10 In mitigation, the presentence investigation report (PSI) stated that defendant had a child 

with his girlfriend and resided with them, his parents, and his sisters. The PSI also indicated that 

defendant was employed in his father’s tree service business and that his father believed that he 

would learn from his mistakes. The PSI also stated that defendant’s sister, Guadalupe, reported 

that defendant was a “ ‘great father’ ” and that his girlfriend needed him to help raise their son.

¶ 11 The prosecutor argued for a prison term:

“I don’t think probation would be proper in this case. The defendant had a very 

large amount. He was obviously a businessman. His business is illegal and 23 pounds of 

cannabis is significant, so we are asking for five or six years in [prison].” 

Defendant did not object to the State’s reference to 23 pounds of cannabis.

¶ 12 Defense counsel argued that defendant was young, had ties to the community, had not 

reoffended during the year that the case was pending or committed any drug or alcohol violations, 

had obtained his driver’s license, had finished all classes as directed by probation, had a one-year1

At a prior status hearing, the prosecutor indicated that the cannabis weighed 9260 grams.
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 4 - 

old child, was employed, and had family support. Defense counsel acknowledged that defendant 

was caught with a “significant amount of *** marijuana” but asserted that defendant had 

“chang[ed] his ways.” Defense counsel asked the court to impose a sentence of 36 months’ 

probation with 18 months’ periodic imprisonment or, alternatively, impact incarceration (also 

known as boot camp).

¶ 13 In imposing sentence, the trial court noted that it “had the opportunity to consider 

everything before it.” Specifically, the court had considered 

“[t]he PSI, factual basis for the plea, the fact it was a plea, *** the words [defendant] spoke 

today, all the statutory and non-statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation including 

*** the constitutional dual command to impose a sentence bearing in mind the seriousness 

of [defendant’s] conduct along with restoring [defendant] to useful citizenship.”

The court added that, while it had considered all of the foregoing, it would “mention just a few”

particular facts. For instance, the court noted that defendant was 21 years old and had “hit the 

criminal justice system big time.” The court further commented that defendant was on probation 

when he “show[ed] up with 20 something pounds of cannabis.” The court emphasized: “We are 

not talking about somebody with a few ounces of cannabis.” Rather, “[w]e are talking 20 plus 

pounds.” 

¶ 14 The trial court further noted that defendant had no significant criminal history beyond his 

one misdemeanor conviction, his conduct did not cause or threaten serious harm, and he did not 

receive any compensation for committing the offense. The court added that there was no evidence 

that defendant acted under strong provocation, that his conduct was excused or justified, or that 

his conduct was induced or facilitated by someone else. The court also found that defendant 

accepted responsibility for his conduct by pleading guilty. 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 5 - 

¶ 15 However, the trial court observed that, because defendant had committed the offense while 

on probation, the court could not find that he was unlikely to commit another offense or likely to 

comply with probation. The court further found that a probation or impact incarceration sentence 

would deprecate the offense’s seriousness and be inconsistent with the ends of justice. The court 

hoped its sentence would deter others from committing the same crime. After “consider[ing] all 

the facts and circumstances,” the court imposed a sentence of eight years in prison.

¶ 16 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence. Defendant argued that the trial court 

did not adequately consider impact incarceration as an option. Primarily, defendant argued that 

the court gave disproportionate weight to his failure to admit during allocution that he was involved 

in a larger scheme to sell cannabis.

¶ 17 Defendant included several additional letters in mitigation. Defendant’s sister, Guadalupe, 

wrote, among other things, that defendant was hardworking, supported his family, and loved his 

son. Defendant’s cousin described defendant as his “little brother” and said that defendant was a 

“great[ ] father” to his son. An attorney wrote that he had known defendant for nearly six years 

because defendant and his family had performed yard work at his home. The attorney said that 

defendant was hardworking and dependable. He recommended that defendant be sentenced to 

probation. Finally, defendant’s girlfriend wrote that defendant was hardworking, a “wonderful 

person,” and a “wonderful dad.” She asked the court for leniency. 

¶ 18 After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to reconsider. The court stated that it had 

considered the additional support letters. The court further noted that it was not required to give 

equal weight to all aggravating and mitigating factors and that, in its view, one of the most 

significant aggravating factors was that defendant possessed over 20 pounds of cannabis. Given

that quantity, probation or impact incarceration would have been inconsistent with the ends of 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 6 - 

justice—and a “higher sentence wouldn’t have been wrong either.” Defendant, in turn, filed a 

timely appeal.

¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 20 On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court’s sentence was erroneous because it 

disregarded several mitigating factors, failed to consider his rehabilitative potential, and 

improperly considered the actual amount of cannabis he possessed, which exceeded the statutory 

quantity range of the offense to which he pled guilty. 

¶ 21 It is well settled that, to preserve a claim of sentencing error, a defendant must both 

contemporaneously object and file a written postsentencing motion raising the issue. People v. 

Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010). Here, as defendant acknowledges, he did not raise at 

sentencing, or in his motion to reconsider, the issue he now raises. Nevertheless, he asks us to 

overlook the forfeiture and review his claim as plain error.

¶ 22 We may review an otherwise forfeited claim only if the defendant establishes plain error. 

Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545. The plain error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception. Hillier, 237 

Ill. 2d at 545. To obtain relief under the doctrine, a defendant must first show that a clear or 

obvious error occurred. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545. In the sentencing context, a defendant must 

then show that either (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the 

error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 

545. Under both prongs of the plain error doctrine, the defendant has the burden of persuasion. 

Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545. If the defendant fails to meet his burden, the procedural default will be 

honored. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545.

¶ 23 Here, we first address whether the trial court committed a clear or obvious error in 

sentencing defendant. It did not.
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 7 - 

¶ 24 The trial court has broad discretion in imposing a sentence, and its sentencing decision 

receives great deference. People v. Campos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230056, ¶ 48. Such deference is 

given because the trial court is in the best position to observe the defendant and the proceedings 

and can weigh the relevant sentencing factors, such as the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, 

general moral character, mentality, social environments, habits, and age. Campos, 2024 Il App 

(2d) 230056, ¶ 48. This deference also means that the reviewing court must not substitute its 

judgment for that of the trial court simply because it might have weighed the factors differently. 

Campos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230056, ¶ 48. A sentence within the applicable statutory range is 

presumed proper. People v. Webster, 2023 IL 128428, ¶ 21. Accordingly, a reviewing court will 

not disturb a defendant’s within-range sentence absent an abuse of discretion. Campos, 2024 IL 

App (2d) 230056, ¶ 48. The trial court abuses its sentencing discretion only if its sentence greatly 

departs from the spirit and purposes of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of 

the offense. Campos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230056, ¶ 48. 

¶ 25 Here, the applicable statutory range for a Class 1 felony was 4 to 15 years in prison. See 

730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-30(a) (West 2020). Because defendant’s eight-year prison sentence was within 

the applicable statutory range, we presume it was proper.

¶ 26 Nor has defendant overcome the presumption that the within-range sentence was proper. 

He asserts that the trial court did not properly consider the mitigating evidence and his 

rehabilitative potential. The court, however, clearly stated that it was considering the PSI, the 

factual basis for the plea, the fact that defendant pled guilty, defendant’s allocution, “all the 

statutory and non-statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation,” and the constitutional command 

to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of defendant’s conduct while aimed at restoring 

defendant to useful citizenship. The court noted that, although it had considered all of those 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 8 - 

factors, it would mention only a few. Of course, it was not required to articulate each one of the 

sentencing factors(see People v. Ramos, 353 Ill. App. 3d 133, 137-38 (2004)), and, absent contrary 

evidence in the record, we presume that the court considered all relevant factors before it (see 

People v. Brown, 2018 IL App (1st) 160924, ¶ 23). Nothing in the record indicates that the court 

failed to consider all relevant mitigating factors identified in the PSI or mentioned by defense 

counsel at the sentencing hearing, including defendant’s age and rehabilitative potential. On the 

contrary, the record confirms that the court considered all pertinent mitigating factors and 

evidence.

¶ 27 Defendant further asserts that the trial court improperly considered in aggravation the 

actual amount of cannabis he possessed. We disagree.

¶ 28 Here, the record established that, although defendant pled guilty to possession with the 

intent to deliver more than 2000 grams but not more than 5000 grams of cannabis (see 720 ILCS 

550/5(f) (West 2020)), he was found to possess over 20 pounds of cannabis. The factual basis for 

the guilty plea, to which defense counsel stipulated, stated that defendant possessed over 5000 

grams of cannabis. Further, at the outset of the sentencing hearing, when the trial court asked the 

prosecutor how much cannabis defendant possessed, the prosecutor responded that defendant 

possessed approximately 10,000 grams or 23.5 pounds. When the court asked defense counsel if 

that amount was correct, counsel answered it was. Thus, the record clearly established that 

defendant possessed over 20 pounds of cannabis. 

¶ 29 Nor was it improper for the trial court, in imposing sentence, to consider the actual amount 

of cannabis possessed by defendant, even though it exceeded the quantity range of the offense to 

which he pled guilty. Although defendant pled guilty to a Class 1 offense, which was based on an 

amount of cannabis not exceeding 5000 grams (see 720 ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2020)), the plea 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 9 - 

agreement did not expressly limit the sentence that could be imposed within the applicable 

statutory range. Because defendant entered an “ ‘open’ plea,” the court could exercise its full 

discretion in determining the sentence to be imposed. See People v. Lumzy, 191 Ill. 2d 182, 185 

(2000). Nor did the plea agreement expressly limit the amount of cannabis the court could consider 

in imposing the sentence. Thus, the court was not limited by defendant’s guilty plea from 

considering an amount of cannabis exceeding the amount upon which the offense was based.

¶ 30 Additionally, the trial court was obligated to consider the nature and circumstances of the 

offense. People v. Knox, 2014 IL App (1st) 120349, ¶ 46. In fashioning a sentence, the most 

important factor is the seriousness of the offense. People v. Contursi, 2019 IL App (1st) 162894, 

¶ 24. Accordingly, the actual amount of cannabis possessed by defendant was a proper—indeed, 

the most important—consideration. Significantly, that amount (9260 grams, according to the 

prosecutor at a prior status hearing) was nearly double the upper limit of the offense’s quantity 

range. Such a large amount properly justified, in part, the rejection of probation or boot camp 

incarceration in favor of a prison sentence that would deter others and reflect the seriousness of 

the crime. The court, in sentencing defendant to slightly below the middle of the statutory range, 

properly considered the actual amount of cannabis possessed by defendant.

¶ 31 Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant within the 

applicable sentencing range, there was no clear or obvious error. Thus, we need not consider 

whether (1) the evidence was closely balanced or (2) the alleged error was so egregious that it 

denied defendant a fair sentencing hearing. See Campos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230056, ¶ 63. Since 

defendant has not established error, let alone plain error, we uphold his forfeiture.

¶ 32 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 33 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County. 
2024 IL App (2d) 230393-U 

- 10 - 

¶ 34 Affirmed.