Court Opinion

ID: 9745282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:45:54.940629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:58.692621
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, specially concurring: Defendants who have some complaint regarding their sentence should be required to specifically raise that complaint at sentencing or file a motion to reconsider or reduce sentence. (People v. Macke (1992), 224 Ill. App. 3d 815, 587 N.E.2d 1113.) The teachings of People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 522 N.E.2d 1124, and People v. Wilk (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 93, 529 N.E.2d 218, logically and legally call for this result. Defendants who fail to challenge their eligibility for Class X sentencing, based on the commission dates of their prior felonies, at their sentencing hearing have been held to have waived the issue. (People v. Williams (1992), 149 Ill. 2d 467.) I believe the defendant here has waived consideration of whether his sentence is excessive because he did not file any motion after sentencing directed at the sentence. In my view some prosecutors and defense counsel pay too little attention to sentencing hearings and the consequences of those proceedings. One striking example is the frequency of appeals which raise the question of some miscalculation of a defendant’s credit for time already served in jail. The case is not over simply because defendant has pleaded guilty or been found guilty by a judge or jury. The sentencing hearing is a significant part of the trial process, and both the People and the defendant deserve vigorous advocacy by their representatives in securing a sentence that is both fair and technically correct. If a defendant believes his sentence is excessive, or he did not receive full credit for time served, then his concerns should be brought to the trial court’s attention. To suggest trial judges will routinely deny such motions or that defendants will only rehash what has already been presented are criticisms or observations that might be made as to any post-trial motion. We are not disclosing family secrets to suggest trial judges who have carefully considered a sentence are not likely to change their minds. Some cynics might opine that trial judges are unlikely to admit their mistakes so that it is unproductive and wasteful to point out those mistakes after sentencing. That is a view I do not hold. If a defendant thinks his sentence is excessive, then he ought by motion to so state in specific terms with reasons for his position. A hearing on the motion will permit the judge to reconsider and either reiterate those important factors which prompted the sentence imposed, or actually make some change in the sentence if it is excessive under the law and facts. Then, the record on appeal will be clear. This will be no more burdensome than any of the other post-trial activities the law has so long countenanced in both civil and criminal trials. It will give the trial court the opportunity to correct any error that might have occurred, and make for a better appellate record. I join in the majority decision because the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, but I do not agree with my colleagues’ rejection of Macke.