Again, we disagree. The record supports the court's finding that defendant accepted a VCR as payment for setting the fire. Defendant also contends that the trial court improperly considered that he had a duty by his position as an employee not to destroy his employer's property. We believe that the legislature did not intend to apply this factor to a store employee hired merely to deliver goods and collect accounts payable. The defendant's obligation to prevent an offense based on his office or position inherently requires some substantive indicia of responsibility on his part.
None exists here.
Defendant had no managerial or supervisory authority. Nor does it appear that he was assigned duties to guard the business, prevent fires, report crimes or otherwise provide security. Accordingly, the trial court should not have considered defendant's position as an employee as a factor in aggravation. 197 Ill. App. Finally, defendant argues that his 24-year sentence was excessive because the three factors found by the court in mitigation substantially outweighed the factors in aggravation.