Opinion ID: 2148851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Defendant's History of Drug Abuse Used as Aggravation

Text: Defendant further claims that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing where the sentencing judge failed to consider defendant's drug abuse history as a mitigating factor and instead deemed it to be aggravating. This court has never held, and defendant directs us to no cases in which an Illinois court has held, that a sentencing judge must consider defendant's drug use as a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions, and we decline to so hold here. Simply because the defendant views his drug abuse history as mitigating does not require the sentencer to do so. In People v. Ward, 154 Ill.2d 272, 181 Ill.Dec. 884, 609 N.E.2d 252 (1992), we considered an argument analogous to the one defendant now advances. The Ward defendant claimed that the evidence of his troubled childhood was necessarily mitigating in nature. In rejecting that argument, this court stated: `Defendant endeavors to persuade us that, because the [Eddings] Court has said a sentencer cannot refuse to consider relevant mitigating evidence presented by a defendant, it has held that a sentencer must give it some mitigating weight. We disagree with the conclusion. The Court has held only that when the sentencer is a judge, the sentencer cannot refuse to hear evidence introduced as mitigating, and cannot refuse to consider whether that evidence is in fact mitigating on the basis that the sentencing judge believes the evidence is barred by law from being considered as mitigating.' Ward, 154 Ill.2d at 337, 181 Ill.Dec. 884, 609 N.E.2d 252, quoting People v. Henderson, 142 Ill.2d 258, 338, 154 Ill.Dec. 785, 568 N.E.2d 1234 (1990). These observations are equally incisive here. Defendant does not claim that the sentencing judge refused to hear or believed he was somehow precluded from viewing the drug abuse history evidence as mitigating. Rather, defendant essentially asserts that the sentencer should have found that defendant's drug abuse history in part explained his criminal behavior. Underlying this premise is that since drugs are partly to blame for his actions, the defendant is somehow less culpable and should not suffer the ultimate penalty for his criminal behavior. Simply stated, the sentencing judge was under no legal obligation to subscribe to this suggestion. To the contrary, the sentencing judge was free to conclude, under the circumstances, that defendant's drug history simply had no mitigating value but was, in fact, aggravating. See Ward, 154 Ill.2d at 337, 181 Ill.Dec. 884, 609 N.E.2d 252. Accordingly, we reject defendant's claim of error.