Court Opinion

ID: 9525323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:02:04.968269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:20.786715
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: The defendant, Pam Garrett, was engaged in an ongoing commercial course of conduct in selling cannabis. She pleaded guilty to two Class 3 felony counts and one Class 4 felony count of unlawful delivery of cannabis. The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences of two years on each conviction. Finding that the trial judge committed error in considering compensation as an aggravating factor, the majority reverses and remands for resentencing. The trial judge was correct. The majority here is itself in error. First off, the Illinois legislature made it perfectly clear that to violate the prohibition against delivery of cannabis requires only delivery, that is, actual, constructive or attempted transfer, “with or without consideration. ” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 56½, par. 703(d).) The legislature provided for punishment of deliveries of cannabis whether or not money changed hands. Thus, the factor of compensation is neither implicit nor explicit in the stated offense. For the majority to state that compensation is implicit in the offense of delivery is, quite simply, to state something that is not so. Since compensation is neither implicit nor explicit in the stated offense, it is a factor that may be considered by the trial judge as either aggravating or mitigating depending on the circumstances of the offense. For instance, a judge might view a continuing course of commercial delivery, as in the instant case, in a more serious light than a situation where a person merely gave cannabis to some pathetic person who was down and out. Secondly, it is to be noted that the concurrent two-year sentences imposed by the trial judge were the minimum sentences under the statute for the two Class 3 felonies. The only other sentence that the trial judge could have imposed would have been probation. The majority opinion in this case is an end run around People v. Cox (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 268, 412 N.E.2d 541, which determined that a reviewing court does not have the authority to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to one of probation. Undeniably, the defendant is to be pitied. She has a previous conviction record for possession of cannabis. She is pregnant though unmarried. Her boyfriend is facing a three-year prison sentence. She is facing a two-year prison sentence. She is suicidal. It is not for the appellate court, however, to usurp the sentencing function of the trial court or the clemency function of the executive branch. Accordingly, I dissent.