Court Opinion

ID: 9405600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 20:05:02.028986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.967914
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221177-U
                                             No. 1-22-1177
                                       Order filed June 28, 2023
                                                                                        Third Division

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
 limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                IN THE
                                  APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                           FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                                )   Appeal from the
                                                                 )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                   )   Cook County.
                                                                 )
     v.                                                          )   No. 18 CR 60205
                                                                 )
 DERRICK MCMATH,                                                 )   Honorable
                                                                 )   James Michael Obbish,
           Defendant-Appellant.                                  )   Judge, presiding.

           JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court.
           Justices Reyes and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.

                                               ORDER

¶1        Held: We affirm defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery where defendant executed
                a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial. We also affirm defendant’s sentence and
                find that the trial court did not consider improper factors in aggravation or fail to
                consider certain factors in mitigation. We vacate defendant’s conviction for
                aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in case no. 07 CR 22337.

¶2        Following a bench trial, defendant Derrick McMath was convicted of aggravated battery

and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court

violated his constitutional rights in accepting his jury trial waiver without ensuring that his waiver
No. 1-22-1177

was knowing and voluntary. Defendant also challenges his sentence on appeal, arguing that the

trial court impermissibly considered his motivations and his decision to remain silent, and failed

to consider his mental health history and rehabilitative potential. Lastly, defendant asserts this

court should vacate his conviction of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) in a prior

case not before this court pursuant to In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, and People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL

112116. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant’s conviction of aggravated battery and

sentence in the instant case and vacate his conviction of AUUW in case number 07 CR 22337.

¶3                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Defendant was charged by indictment with four counts of aggravated battery for striking

the victim, 67-year-old Susan Johnson, on the head while she was seated on a Chicago Transit

Authority (CTA) train, causing her to lose an eye. At the conclusion of defendant’s bench trial, the

court found him guilty of all charges. The trial court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment

on count 1, aggravated battery causing great bodily harm in an individual 60 years of age or older,

with the additional counts merging.

¶5                                           A. Pre-Trial

¶6     At a hearing on July 18, 2019, the defense tendered a forensic evaluation report performed

by a doctor hired by the public defender’s office to evaluate defendant. The State requested an

evaluation for sanity at the time of the offense by Forensic Clinical Services. The trial court entered

an order on July 18, 2019, referring defendant for a sanity evaluation by Forensic Clinical Services.

The record contains a letter from court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr. Sarah E. Anderson, who

examined defendant on October 2, 2019, and concluded that defendant was legally sane at the time

of the offense.

                                                 -2-
No. 1-22-1177

¶7     At a hearing over video conference on August 30, 2021, the attorneys and the trial court

set the case for a bench trial. At the date set for bench trial on November 2, 2021, the parties

appeared and the State requested a postponement in order to obtain additional medical records for

the victim. At the next court date, the parties again set a bench trial date of January 31, 2022, by

agreement. The parties again postponed the bench trial due to the victim’s medical reasons. At the

rescheduled date, the parties again rescheduled the bench trial by agreement.

¶8                                     B. Jury Trial Waiver

¶9     On May 16, 2022, the parties reconvened for defendant’s bench trial. At the outset, the trial

court addressed the jury trial waiver. The record contains a written jury waiver by defendant dated

May 16, 2022, stating, “I, the undersigned, do hereby waive jury trial and submit the above-entitled

cause to the Court for hearing.” Defendant’s counsel informed the court that “Mr. McMath has

executed a jury waiver, he wishes to proceed by way of bench trial.” The following colloquy

occurred between the trial court and defendant:

                “THE COURT: Mr. McMath, I do have a document here, sir, it reads, ‘I, the

       undersigned, do hereby waive jury trial and submit the above-entitled cause for hearing.’

       Is that your signature on the written jury waiver?

                DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                THE COURT: Do you know what a jury trial is?

                DEFENDANT: Right, yeah.

                THE COURT: Did anybody force you or threaten you in any way to get you to

       waive your right to a trial by jury?

                DEFENDANT: No.

                                               -3-
No. 1-22-1177

                THE COURT: Did anyone promise you anything to get you to waive your right to

      a jury trial?

                DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                THE COURT: They did promise you something?

                DEFENDANT: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

                THE COURT: Who promised you something?

                DEFENDANT: God.

                THE COURT: God did?

                DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, from his word.

                THE COURT: All right. I don’t think that would be the type of promise that would

      affect your jury waiver that—you are talking about something about your own personal

      religious beliefs and your association with God and all that but any waiver of trial by jury

      has to be knowingly and voluntarily by you and you should know that no one can promise

      you anything that would be necessarily enforceable by this court so you have to be the one

      that makes the decision whether or not you want to waive your right to a trial by jury or

      not, that—you and only you can make that decision.

                DEFENDANT: I do waive my right.

                THE COURT: So other than your faith did anybody else promise you anything to

      get you to waive your right to trial by jury?

                DEFENDANT: No, sir.

                THE COURT: Your attorney didn’t promise you anything?

                DEFENDANT: No.

                                              -4-
No. 1-22-1177

                THE COURT: No witnesses promised you anything?

                DEFENDANT: No.

                THE COURT: No deputies?

                DEFENDANT: No.

                THE COURT: This court?

                DEFENDANT: No.

                THE COURT: Are you waiving your right to a trial by jury of your own free will?

                DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir.

                THE COURT: All right, the jury waiver will be accepted by the court. I do know

       that on prior occasions based on the history of this particular case Mr. McMath was in fact

       evaluated and examined by Cook County’s Forensics Division and he was found fit to

       stand trial according to the Forensic Services Division. I’m not sure which doctor it was at

       the time but he was also—it was the opinion of the examiners that he was sane at the time

       of the alleged offense as well.”

¶ 10   Defense counsel informed the court that,

       “the public defender's office in May of 2019 had consulted with an outside expert, a Dr.

       Seltzberg *** who was consulted on the basis of fitness and sanity, there was a finding not

       by Forensic Clinical Services but by an independent expert that Mr. McMath was insane

       at the time of the offense. However Mr. McMath does not wish to proceed with the

       affirmative defense of insanity at this time. I have consulted with Mr. McMath, I have

       consulted with other attorneys in my office as well as read relevant case law, I believe that

       Mr. McMath as he has not been found unfit, it is his decision to proceed with an affirmative

                                               -5-
No. 1-22-1177

       defense if he so chooses, he is not choosing to proceed with respect to that defense, I would

       ask your Honor to admonish him with respect to that.”

¶ 11   The trial court admonished defendant regarding whether he wanted to pursue a defense of

insanity, and defendant indicated he did not want his attorney to pursue this defense. The trial court

questioned defendant regarding whether he was being forced or promised something in making

this decision, and if he was making this decision of his own free will. The trial court then found:

       “I believe that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily exercised not only his right to

       waive his right to a jury but he has exercised his right to choose not to ask that an

       affirmative defense be used in his particular case and that's an affirmative defense being

       insanity, that is the choice of the defendant and the defendant who is competent is allowed

       to make that decision and Mr. McMath appears to this court to be competent today, his

       attorney has not raised his competency in any new motions since he was found competent

       so his choice will be honored by this court and we can go ahead and proceed with a bench

       trial without any affirmative defenses.”

¶ 12                                       C. Bench Trial

¶ 13   The victim, Susan Johnson, testified that she was 71 years old at the time of trial. On June

14, 2018, at approximately 11:15 a.m., she was on the Purple Line CTA train heading north to the

Howard stop. She was sitting on the right side of the train in the first set of seats nearest to the

door, behind the area for strollers or people in wheelchairs. She was sitting alone and reading her

Kindle e-book and wearing glasses. She testified that when the train stopped at the Jarvis stop, she

experienced “a movement, a flash of somebody moving and I suddenly felt a really hard blow to

the side of my face on the left side of my face.” She saw that the person who had hit her then “ran

                                                -6-
No. 1-22-1177

in front of me and jumped off the train right as the doors were closing.” She observed that the

person was “tall and slender and he was—he was black.”

¶ 14   Johnson testified that the left side of her face felt wet; she touched her face and saw blood.

Her glasses had been knocked off, and she asked someone to help her find them. She put the glasses

in her purse and wanted to know if someone could give her tissues because she was “bleeding a

lot.” She took some tissues out from inside her purse and attempted to wipe her face around her

eye. Johnson testified that “I was bending over and looking down at the floor thinking the bleeding

wasn't myself and on the floor of the car I could see something that looked gelatinous and it was

grayish and I knew it was the inside of my eye.”

¶ 15   The train continued moving and eventually stopped at the Howard station. Everyone exited

the train except Johnson, who asked someone to call 911. She testified that a CTA attendant asked

her to get off, but she stated that she could not, and she believed he may have called 911.

¶ 16   She testified that the paramedics arrived and bandaged her eye and transported her to the

ambulance and then to the hospital. She received a CT scan and spoke with Dr. Kevin Patel, an

eye surgeon, who informed Johnson that “the eye was badly damaged and he was going to take

me to surgery and do his best to try to save the eye.” She had surgery that same day.

¶ 17   After the surgery, Johnson was “told that my eye would have to be removed because it

couldn't be saved. He told me I had a broken orbit, the bone going around my eye was broken, my

eye was of course damaged, *** I was hit with such force that my teeth were loosened and got out

of alignment both on the top and the bottom on the left side of my mouth.” Johnson also suffered

a concussion. She was discharged later that evening. Johnson was very badly bruised on the left

side of her face and down into her neck.

                                               -7-
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 18   On June 15, 2018, she saw Dr. Paul Phelps, an oculoplastic surgeon, who took photos and

scheduled a second surgery for June 19, 2018. Johnson explained that she needed a second surgery

because her eye “was basically destroyed and they had to remove it for the same reason I said

before, it had to be removed very quickly so it didn't harm my other eye.” Dr. Phelps also repaired

the fracture to her orbital area. However, it did not heal perfectly and there was still a bump below

her left eye where the bone was broken. Dr. Phelps removed her left eye and replaced it with “a

sphere which is a placeholder that will stay permanently and I will eventually have a prosthetic

fake eye made to fit over that to look as normal as possible.”

¶ 19   Johnson testified that she also had to go to an ocularist, who is “a person trained to make

an acrylic shell that is custom made to fit over the eyeball.” However, because there was so much

internal damage behind her eye and in her head, “it was more complicated than normal[]” and she

has been to the ocularist at least 40 times “because it's very hard to fit and this was harder than

normal because of all the damage internally.” The ocularist makes a mold of the inside to get an

exact fit and then painted it to look like the other eye. Johnson testified that she experienced

infection and “it was really, really unusually difficult to make it fit properly, he had to keep

adjusting it and there was a lot of discomfort and pain and there is still a lot of discomfort and pain

because of all the damage that was done.”

¶ 20   Johnson testified that before the incident, she could see out of her left eye and had no pain

in her eye. She is now totally blind in her left eye because it had to be removed following the

trauma from the incident. Johnson identified a CTA video showing the attack and photographs

taken of her following the attack.

                                                 -8-
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 21   Dr. Patel testified that he is a board-certified ophthalmologist and retinal specialist. He was

on-call on June 14, 2018, at St. Francis Hospital, and examined the victim when she arrived with

a severe eye injury and orbital wall fractures. He observed severe swelling and bulging of her

upper left eye and severe bleeding when he tried to open her eye; the eye appeared grossly

deformed and crushed. Dr. Patel sent her to surgery immediately. During surgery, Dr. Patel found

that the sclera or white part of the eye was missing tissue; he attempted to suture it, but there was

not enough tissue, and he concluded that the victim needed the eye removed. Dr. Patel testified

that it would take a substantial amount of force to cause that much damage. He testified that “[t]his

is probably the most [damage] I have seen, I actually have never not been able to save an eye, this

is the only case I was not able to save an eye.”

¶ 22   Dr. Phelps, an oculofacial plastic surgeon who performs reconstructive surgery on the

eyelid, tear duct, and eye socket, including removal of the eye, testified that he examined Johnson

on June 15, 2018. She had a severely damaged eyeball, lacerations around her eye, multiple orbital

fractures in the bones around her eye socket, and severe bruising around her eye. She also had a

ruptured globe, meaning that the white of the eyeball had been lacerated severely and contents

inside the eyeball were coming out. She also had a complex eyelid laceration. Because the eye was

blind and painful, Dr. Phelps recommended removal as there was no chance of recovering vision,

and if left in too long, the immune system could start to attack both eyeballs. He performed the

surgery to remove the eye and repair the orbital fractures on June 19, 2018. He had to put in a plate

to repair the orbital fracture below her eye and replaced the eyeball with a silicone sphere. Dr.

Phelps testified that the left eye is permanently blind, and Johnson also suffered permanent

                                                   -9-
No. 1-22-1177

disfigurement. After she healed, she was sent to an ocularist to have a shell made to fit on the

silicone sphere that looked more like a real eye.

¶ 23   Nicolas Arriaga testified that he is a manager at Milwaukee Shoe and Ski on North

Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago. On June 15, 2018, at approximately 2:15 p.m., Arriaga was

working at the store when a man, whom he identified as defendant at trial, came into the store.

Defendant was the only customer in the store and Arriaga was viewing him the entire time as it

was a small store with no aisles. Defendant asked to try on a pair of shoes, which Arriaga brought

to him. Arriaga testified that defendant tried the shoes on and walked around the store like he was

“trying them out,” but then defendant suddenly “bolted for the door.” Arriaga chased after him and

caught up to him down the block. He grabbed defendant’s backpack and “we were going back and

forth at it,” but then defendant pulled away.

¶ 24   Arriaga testified that an off-duty or retired police officer pulled up in his car and asked if

defendant had stolen something. Arriaga said he had, and the officer then pursued defendant and

“grabbed him.” Defendant’s backpack was black with a stripe on it. Defendant had left behind his

“brown beat up shoes with like a white stripe in the back” in the store. The police took both pairs

of shoes as evidence. Arriaga identified a photograph of defendant, noting that defendant was

wearing the exact same clothes at the time of the theft—a blue shirt with a white “Illinois” logo,

pants, and the brown shoes with white on the back. He testified that the photographs of defendant

accurately depicted the way he looked on the day of the theft and he remembered defendant

“vividly.”

¶ 25   Chicago police detective Martin Mulligan was in a marked squad car with his partner

driving down Milwaukee Avenue at approximately 2:24 p.m. on June 15, 2018. He testified that

                                                - 10 -
No. 1-22-1177

he observed “an older gentleman holding down a younger gentleman waving us down.” He

identified defendant at trial as the younger gentleman. Mulligan detained defendant and learned

from the older individual, who was a retired police officer, that a retail theft had just occurred.

Defendant was taken into custody.

¶ 26    Chicago police sergeant Michael Roth was assigned to investigate the aggravated battery

and interviewed Johnson at the hospital on the same day as the attack. He testified that he observed

that she had a large contusion above her left eye, describing that “it was rather gruesome, it was

about the size of a golf ball and there was a little bit of blood in there, it was one of the most severe

injuries I’ve ever seen short of a homicide.” Roth also obtained the video recording from the CTA

surveillance camera, in addition to still shots of defendant and two security bulletins. Roth used

the video to generate “seeking to identify” bulletins and disseminated it to the rest of the police

department and the community. It was posted to the Chicago Police Department’s Facebook page.

Another officer contacted Roth about the bulletin on June 15, 2018, and subsequently brought

defendant to Area North where Roth was stationed. Roth observed that defendant was wearing “a

white-blue T shirt with the words [sic] ‘Illinois’ across the chest,” jeans, and brown shoes with a

white stripe on the back. Defendant also had a large backpack with two red stripes. Roth also noted

that defendant had an abrasion on the knuckle of his right index finger. Roth had an evidence

technician take photographs of defendant and inventoried the backpack. The backpack contained

miscellaneous items of clothing, defendant’s birth certificate, and toiletries.

¶ 27    The trial court found defendant guilty of all charges, finding that the video evidence, still

shots, and clothing proved that defendant was the individual who attacked Johnson on the CTA

                                                 - 11 -
No. 1-22-1177

train.1 The trial court noted “the horrific nature of this unprovoked, inexplicable act by the part of

someone who just hauls off and -- for no apparent reason comes up with a roundhouse right punch

into the facial area of Ms. Johnson as she is sitting on the train reading her E book.” The trial court

noted that the video showed that defendant timed the attack with the stopping of the train and

opening of the doors.

¶ 28    Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.

¶ 29                                         D. Sentencing

¶ 30    At sentencing, the State presented evidence in aggravation consisting of testimony by

Evanston police officer Brian Hicks. Hicks testified about a similar attack by defendant on January

25, 2018, at the Dempster Street CTA train stop. Defendant struck a woman in the face with his

closed fist while she was sitting on a bench waiting for the train and then ran away.

¶ 31    In addition, Johnson provided a victim impact statement. Johnson testified about her

physical injuries—the loss of her left eye, surgery to repair her eye socket, her teeth being knocked

out of alignment, a concussion, permanent nerve damage to the left side of her face, and recurrent

severe headaches. She will have to see the ocularist for the rest of her life due to complex issues

with the prosthetic eye and will require additional surgery. In addition to the physical injuries, she

developed post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety, and sees a therapist twice per

week. Johnson testified that she has contemplated suicide, withdraws from people, and feels

        1
          The parties stipulated that Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) employee, Patrick Flaherty, would
testify that he is a security investigator for the CTA and is familiar with the CTA surveillance cameras in
operation on train cars on the date of the offense, June 14, 2018. The cameras continuously record and
provide a time and date stamp. The cameras on the train car where the offense occurred were in proper
working order on that date and the video was downloaded onto two DVDs and given to the Chicago police
detectives. Flaherty would also authenticate the two DVDs entered into evidence at trial, along with still
photographs taken from those videos and CTA security bulletins Flaherty sent to the Chicago police.

                                                  - 12 -
No. 1-22-1177

“trapped under a giant dark unbearable sphere.” Johnson also testified that her daily life has been

impacted as she had to take driving lessons from a specialist but still could not drive without

anxiety, her balance is “severely compromised,” she feels overwhelmed in crowds, she requires a

wheelchair in the airport, and her lifelong passions of reading and needlepoint are more difficult.

She testified that the consequences of the attack will “go on and on.”

¶ 32   In aggravation, the State argued that this was a “senseless” crime, unprovoked by the

victim, who suffered severe, life-long injuries as a result, defendant timed the attack purposely

with the stopping of the train and opening of the doors, and defendant perpetrated a similar attack

on another woman six months prior. The State argued for the maximum penalty, observing that

counts one to three alleged aggravated battery to a senior causing great bodily harm, which was

“three to seven years IDOC at 85 percent,” and count four alleged aggravated battery to a transit

passenger, which was “two to ten because he is extendible because of the victim's age and that's at

50 percent.”

¶ 33   The defense argued in mitigation that both a psychologist and a psychiatrist retained by the

public defender’s office had found defendant to be legally insane at the time of the offense,

although defendant elected not to proceed with that defense. The defense noted that Dr. Seltzberg

diagnosed defendant with a “bipolar type of schizophrenic disorder.” Defense counsel noted that

defendant’s family noticed a change in defendant in the beginning of 2018 when he began

attending a church where some people had a negative influence on him, and he began hearing

voices and “had some preoccupations,” which led to the two incidents. Defense counsel argued

that defendant has been incarcerated for over four years while awaiting trial, had not picked up

any new cases while in prison, is close with his family, and deserved a sentence of time served.

                                              - 13 -
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 34   The trial court acknowledged that defendant’s presentence investigation report was filed.

In sentencing defendant to seven years’ imprisonment, the trial court stated that this was “one of

the most disturbing cases that I have presided over as a judge” given the horrific nature of the

injuries, the unsuspecting victim, the unprovoked attack, and defendant’s commission of a similar

offense a few months prior. The trial court noted that all counts merged into count one, a class 2

felony, which must be served at 85 percent because he caused great bodily harm to a victim over

60 years of age. It gave defendant credit for 1,502 days served. The State indicated it would nolle

pross the charges in the other case.

¶ 35   Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence on grounds that, inter alia, it was excessive

based on defendant’s background and the nature of his participation in the offense. The trial court

denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 36                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 37                                      A. Jury Waiver

¶ 38   Defendant first contends on appeal that the trial court accepted his jury waiver without first

ensuring that he understood the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial.

¶ 39   Defendant concedes that he did not properly preserve this issue in the trial court. “Both a

trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are required for alleged errors that

could have been raised during trial.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186

(1988). Defendant argues, however, that relief is available under plain error review as the right to

a jury trial is fundamental.

¶ 40   Under the doctrine of plain error, we may review unpreserved errors that would otherwise

be waived “(1) where the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) when the errors are of such

                                                - 14 -
No. 1-22-1177

magnitude that defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial and remedying the error is necessary

to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Nieves, 192 Ill. 2d 487, 502-03 (2000).

Under either prong, a defendant bears the burden of persuasion. People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43

(2009). Defendant asserts the jury waiver issue constituted second-prong plain error. However,

before addressing this contention, we must first consider whether any error has occurred. People

v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).

¶ 41   Our federal and state constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant’s right to a trial by jury.

U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 8, 13. A defendant may knowingly and

understandingly waive this right in open court. 725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2012); People v. Bracey,

213 Ill. 2d 265, 269-70 (2004). “There is no specific admonishment or advice the court must

provide before accepting a waiver. [Citation.] Consequently, the effectiveness of a defendant's

waiver depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” People v. Reed, 2016 IL

App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7 (citing People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 66 (2008)).

       “The crucial determination is whether the waiving defendant understood that his case

       would be decided by a judge and not a jury. [Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at] 69. Although a

       signed jury waiver alone does not prove a defendant's understanding, it is evidence that a

       waiver was knowingly made. People v. Dockery, 296 Ill. App. 3d 271, 276 (1998).

       Similarly, a present defendant's silence while his or her attorney requests a bench trial

       provides evidence that the waiver is valid. See People v. Brials, 315 Ill. App. 3d 162, 176

       (2000). Reviewing courts may also consider a defendant's prior interactions with the justice

       system in determining whether a jury waiver was made knowingly.” Reed, 2016 IL App

       (1st) 140498, ¶ 7.

                                               - 15 -
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 42    Defendant bears the burden of showing that his jury waiver was invalid. Id. (citing People

v. Stokes, 281 Ill. App. 3d 972, 977 (1996)).

¶ 43   Reviewing all of the facts and circumstances here, we find that defendant knowingly and

understandingly waived his right to a jury trial. We note that, at least twice in open court with

defendant present, defendant’s counsel and the State rescheduled his bench trial, without any

objection by defendant. “[A]n accused typically speaks and acts through his attorney, and a jury

waiver is valid when ‘made by defense counsel in defendant's presence where defendant gave no

indication of any objection to the court hearing the case.’ ” People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285

(quoting People v. Frey, 103 Ill.2d 327, 332 (1984)). See also Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶

7; Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 270.

¶ 44   Moreover, on the day of defendant’s bench trial, the trial court adequately admonished and

ensured that defendant understood the right he was waiving and that he was doing so voluntarily.

Before the trial began, defense counsel informed the court that defendant had executed a jury

waiver and wished to proceed by bench trial. Defendant takes issue with the jury waiver form

because it stated that defendant “waive[d] jury trial and submit[ted] the above-entitled cause to the

Court for hearing,” arguing that the word “hearing” was misleading and did not explain the

difference between a bench trial and a jury trial. However, while a written waiver is not dispositive

of a valid waiver, we may consider it as further evidence of defendant’s intent to waive a jury trial,

particularly when viewed in light of the trial court’s colloquy with defendant and the other facts

and circumstances of the case. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7.

¶ 45   The trial court read the jury waiver form to defendant and asked defendant if that was his

signature appearing on the waiver, and defendant affirmed that it was. The trial court specifically

                                                - 16 -
No. 1-22-1177

asked, “Do you know what a jury trial is?” Defendant responded, “Right, yeah.” In response to

further questioning by the trial court, defendant indicated that no one threatened him into waiving

his right to a jury trial.

¶ 46    The trial court also asked defendant if anyone promised him anything. Defendant

responded in the affirmative. Upon further inquiry by the court, defendant related that, “God”

promised him “from his word.” Defendant asserts on appeal that the trial court failed to follow up

on defendant’s answer, which defendant contends should have “raised alarm bells,” and that the

trial court erroneously relied on its belief that defendant had been found fit to stand trial.

¶ 47    However, the record demonstrates that the trial court adequately probed defendant’s

response and that the parties and the court did not have concerns regarding defendant’s fitness to

stand trial. The trial court explained to defendant that defendant’s personal religious beliefs would

not “be the type of promise that would affect your jury trial waiver” and clarified that “any waiver

of trial by jury has to be knowingly and voluntarily by you and you should know that no one can

promise you anything that would be necessarily enforceable by this court so you have to be the

one that makes the decision *** you and only you can make that decision.” Defendant then

responded, “I do waive my right.” The court again clarified, “So other than your faith did anybody

else promise you anything to get you to waive your right to trial by jury?” Defendant stated, “No,

sir.”

¶ 48    The trial court continued questioning, verifying that he was not promised anything by his

attorney, the court, any witnesses, or deputies, to which defendant responded in the negative.

Defendant reaffirmed that he was waiving his “right to a trial by jury of your own free will.” The

trial court then accepted the jury waiver.

                                                - 17 -
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 49   The trial court also noted that defendant had been found fit to stand trial and sane at the

time of the offense by the Cook County Forensic Services Division. Defense counsel interjected

that the defense’s outside expert had found defendant insane at the time of the offense, but that

defendant did not want to proceed with an insanity defense. Defense counsel informed the court

that: “I have consulted with Mr. McMath, I have consulted with other attorneys in my office as

well as read relevant case law, I believe that Mr. McMath as he has not been found unfit, it is his

decision to proceed with an affirmative defense if he so chooses, he is not choosing to proceed

with respect to that defense, I would ask your Honor to admonish him with respect to that.”

(Emphasis added).

¶ 50   The trial court engaged defendant in a colloquy regarding his right to pursue a defense of

insanity. Defendant indicated he did not want his attorney to pursue this defense, that he was not

being forced or promised something in making this decision, and he was making the decision of

his own free will. Following this colloquy, the trial court found that defendant knowingly and

voluntarily waived both his right to a jury trial and his option to pursue an insanity defense, and

that he appeared competent in court:

       “defendant has knowingly and voluntarily exercised not only his right to waive his right to

       a jury but he has exercised his right to choose not to ask that an affirmative defense be used

       in his particular case and that's an affirmative defense being insanity, that is the choice of

       the defendant and the defendant who is competent is allowed to make that decision and Mr.

       McMath appears to this court to be competent today, his attorney has not raised his

       competency in any new motions since he was found competent so his choice will be

                                               - 18 -
No. 1-22-1177

       honored by this court and we can go ahead and proceed with a bench trial without any

       affirmative defenses.”

¶ 51   The above discussion between the trial court, defendant, and defense counsel demonstrate

that defendant understood his right to a jury trial and knowingly waived it, and that the parties and

the court had no concerns regarding his fitness to stand trial or ability to understand his rights and

waive them. Defendant does not challenge the waiver of his right to pursue the insanity defense

on appeal.

¶ 52   In addition to twice rescheduling his bench trial without any objection by defendant and

executing a written jury waiver form, we further note that defendant was familiar with the criminal

justice system in that he had prior convictions. When examining whether a waiver was knowing,

we may consider defendant's silence when his attorney “requests a bench trial” as well as his “prior

interactions with the justice system in determining whether a jury waiver was made knowingly.”

Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7. Considering all the facts and circumstances in the present

case, we find defendant knowingly waived his right to a jury trial.

¶ 53   Because we have found that no error occurred, there can be no plain error. Reed, 2016 IL

App (1st) 140498, ¶ 11.

¶ 54                                    B. Sentencing Errors

¶ 55   Defendant next challenges his seven-year sentence, arguing that the trial court failed to

consider mitigating factors—his mental health history and rehabilitative potential—and

improperly considered defendant’s possible motives and his decision to forgo allocution at

sentencing.

                                                - 19 -
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 56   Although defendant filed a post-sentencing motion for resentencing containing general

claims of error, he did not object at the sentencing hearing to the trial court’s alleged consideration

of improper factors in aggravation and alleged failure to consider other factors in mitigation, and

he did not specifically raise these issues in his post-sentencing motion.

¶ 57   To preserve a claim of sentencing error, a defendant must contemporaneously object and

raise the issue in a written post-sentencing motion. People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010).

Defendant argues that this court should excuse his failure to object. However, the line of cases he

cites is inapplicable to the present circumstances. Our supreme court has held that the court may

excuse a lack of objection in the most compelling situations, where the trial court oversteps its

authority in the presence of the jury, or when trial counsel was effectively prevented from objecting

because an objection would have been futile or fallen on deaf ears. See People v. Sprinkle, 27 Ill.

2d 398, 401 (1963); People v. Woods, 2018 IL App (1st) 153323, ¶ 34; People v. McLaurin, 235

Ill. 2d 478, 488 (2009); People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). No such circumstances

are present here.

¶ 58   To be entitled to relief for an unpreserved sentencing error, a defendant must show that a

clear or obvious error occurred and either that the sentencing evidence was closely balanced or

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

2d at 545. “If the defendant fails to meet his burden, the procedural default will be honored.” Id.

¶ 59   Under the Illinois Constitution, a sentence is to be determined both according to the

seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. Ill.

Const. 1970, art. I, § 11; People v. Jones, 2019 IL App (1st) 170478, ¶ 49. “ ‘Relevant factors in

determining an appropriate sentence include the nature of the crime, protection of the public,

                                                - 20 -
No. 1-22-1177

deterrence, and punishment, as well as the defendant's rehabilitative prospects and youth.’ ” People

v. Harmon, 2015 IL App (1st) 122345, ¶ 123 (quoting People v. Starnes, 374 Ill. App. 3d 132, 143

(2007)). “A trial court must base its sentencing determination on the particular circumstances of

each case, considering such factors as the defendant's credibility, demeanor, general moral

character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age.” Id. The trial court must weigh both

aggravating and mitigating factors in fashioning a sentence. Jones, 2019 IL App (1st) 170478, ¶

50 (citing 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1, 3.2 (West 2014)). “Because the most important sentencing factor

is the seriousness of the offense, the court is not required to give greater weight to mitigating

factors than to the seriousness of the offense, nor does the presence of mitigating factors either

require a minimum sentence or preclude a maximum sentence.” Harmon, 2015 IL App (1st)

122345, ¶ 123.

¶ 60   In determining a sentence, the trial court exercises broad discretion; a sentence falling

within statutory limits is presumed proper, and we review it for an abuse of that discretion. Jones,

2019 IL App (1st) 170478, ¶ 50 (citing People v. Contursi, 2019 IL App (1st) 162894, ¶ 23; People

v. Branch, 2018 IL App (1st) 150026, ¶ 34). In the present case, defendant was convicted of

aggravated battery, causing great bodily harm to an individual 60 years of age or older, which

carried a sentencing range of three to seven years. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(4)/(h) (West 2018); 730

ILCS 5/5-4.5-35(a) (West 2018). Thus, his sentence fell within the statutory limits.

¶ 61   As such, on review, “we may alter a sentence only when it varies greatly from the spirit

and purpose of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.” Contursi,

2019 IL App (1st) 162894, ¶ 23. As the trial court had the opportunity to personally observe the

defendant and proceedings, it was in a superior position to determine the appropriate sentence.

                                               - 21 -
No. 1-22-1177

Jones, 2019 IL App (1st) 170478, ¶ 50. “This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the

trial court merely because we would have weighed the sentencing factors differently.” Id.

¶ 62                           i. Improper Consideration of Aggravating Factors

¶ 63   Defendant contends that the trial court improperly speculated about defendant’s motives

and improperly considered defendant’s decision to forgo allocution at sentencing.

¶ 64   “[A] trial judge may not consider an improper factor in aggravation when sentencing a

defendant because such consideration clearly affects that defendant's fundamental right to liberty.”

People v. Brown, 2019 IL App (5th) 160329, ¶ 18. Our courts have found error where a trial court

made a sentencing determination based on its own private investigation or private knowledge, or

speculation about facts not in evidence. See People v. Dameron, 196 Ill. 2d 156, 171-72 (2001)

(trial court spoke at length about social science statistics and generalizations about crime the judge

had read in a book, which also conflicted with the evidence in the case); People v. Johnson, 227

Ill. App. 3d 800, 816-17 (1992) (court’s finding that offense was drug-related was not based on

the evidence). Additionally, a trial court may not draw negative inferences from a defendant’s

exercise of his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. People v. Maggio, 2017 IL App

(4th) 150287, ¶ 48; People v. Young, 2022 IL App (3d) 190015, ¶ 22.

¶ 65   “When we review a sentence for an alleged error based upon the consideration of an

improper factor in aggravation, we consider the record as a whole and do not focus merely on a

few words or statements from the trial judge.” Brown, 2019 IL App (5th) 160329, ¶ 18. We

consider the trial court’s statements as a whole because “[a]n isolated remark made in passing,

even though improper, does not necessarily require that [the] defendant be resentenced.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Id. Ultimately, in order to obtain a remand for resentencing, “a

                                                - 22 -
No. 1-22-1177

defendant who has alleged error must show more than the mere mentioning of the improper factor

in aggravation: the defendant bears the burden of showing that the trial judge relied upon the

improper factor in fashioning the defendant's sentence.” Id.

¶ 66    As we must consider the trial court’s statements as a whole, we set them forth below in

their entirety:

        “This case quite frankly is one of the most disturbing cases that I have presided over as a

        judge and that's basically been almost 25 years now.

                  The brutality on an absolutely innocent individual who did nothing to provoke,

        entice, encourage challenge Mr. McMath in any way, to be just there as nothing but -- like

        she didn't exist, like she wasn't a living, breathing human being who would suffer pain.

                  She could not have been more vulnerable. She's sitting there alone looking down,

        reading. She is using public transportation for the purpose it was intended. And for no

        explainable reason other than hate and the desire to destroy and hurt and cause permanent

        physical damage, she brutality, unbelievably punched by the defendant here who sizes up

        the situation, realizes she's in no position to defend herself nor would she be in any thought

        process where she might have defended herself.

                  She is supposed to be safe, you know. She does nothing to entice Mr. McMath other

        than just sitting there minding her own business, using public transportation when she is

        punched so hard by such a roundhouse swipe in such a cowardly act because the act is done

        at the same time the train is pulling into a station so that the doors are going to open up and

        the person that causes this horrific damage can just flee out the door and then hopefully get

                                                - 23 -
No. 1-22-1177

      away, hopefully never be apprehended. Apparently, you know, so that if Mr. McMath

      chose, he could continue to do it again.

                The horrific nature of her injury was -- it was difficult for the lady to get up here I

      know and even read what she had written about what she has endured. It was difficult to

      listen to it. You know, we complain about minor aches and pains, you know, we get a cold,

      we get a stomach flu or something like that, oh, we're miserable.

                But she is one of the strongest people I've ever seen. To fight back for her own

      health to be there for others, to demonstrate the kind of courage that you didn't ever

      demonstrate, punching that lady, running away so that you could get away with it.

                You almost—You very likely might have gotten away with it. You know, the

      Evanston Police Department, they had your photograph as well but they might not have

      been ever [sic] able to have anybody use that photograph in such a way where they could

      identify who the person was so that they could put it in a showup [sic] to see if the attacker

      at the Dempster stop was the same woman [sic].

                Fortunately, because of some other activity you engaged in if I'm not mistaken, it

      was, like, a retired police officer that chased after Mr. McMath as he fled from a store and

      he was able to hold him so that the police could actually take him into custody and

      ultimately be held responsible for what he did to Ms. Johnson.

                Anyway, I just hope, ma'am, that you never succumb to this horrific act that

      happened to you and I just hope and pray that you stay strong and you just keep fighting

      for every day because you deserve it. You earned it. You did nothing other than live a good

                                                - 24 -
No. 1-22-1177

      life. And I can't explain it. I can't justify it. I can't do anything that can make you the way

      you were. If I had that power, I would use it.

                But the brutality of his act is mind boggling. And then now to learn that the

      defendant did exactly the same thing to another lady again on the CTA and it's the same

      cowardly act, the lady is sitting there and the defendant just -- not even on a train just comes

      up, sees her unprotected, not doing anything to provoke anybody in the world, but he just

      hauls off and hits her. For her good fortune and sadly Ms. Johnson's bad fortune, he didn't

      connect at exactly the same angle even though he tried. And that lady was not nearly as

      severely injured as Ms. Johnson was.

                The kinds of injuries Ms. Johnson went through here, the injuries she went through

      for this punch, you know, it's worse than some of the bullet cases we get, some of the

      gunshot victims. You know, and it's—I don't know. It seems like both of these attacks again

      just—it’s—they’re not explained. I read the presentence investigation. I've listened to the

      arguments of [defense counsel] and then given the defendant an opportunity to try to

      perhaps say something and it's his choice, he doesn't have to, I won't hold it against him

      that he didn't. But I'm not equipped to figure out what was going on that would drive any

      human being to do this to another human being other than just some sort of hatred.

                I mean, it's—this—we hear the term bandied about, you know, Oh, it's a hate crime

      or something like that. And this sure seems like it was a hate crime to me. Maybe not as

      defined by statute. But no human being could do this to another person in an unprovoked

      way like that without having some inner hatred for humanity.

                                               - 25 -
No. 1-22-1177

                The defendant sadly was—I guess the way the case went was he—he had not been

       identified for the January attack when Ms. Johnson was the victim.”

¶ 67   Defendant argues that the trial court improperly speculated about his motives in

committing the attack in mentioning a “hate crime.” However, when viewed as a whole, the trial

court did not engage in speculation about facts outside the evidence, did not rely on any private

knowledge or private investigation, and did not make any type of finding rooted in such when

determining defendant’s sentence. Dameron, 196 Ill. 2d at 171-72; Johnson, 227 Ill. App. 3d at

816-17.

¶ 68   The trial court’s brief statement about a “hate crime” towards the end of its colloquy is

more properly viewed in the context of the trial court’s discussion about what the trial evidence

and evidence presented at the sentencing had shown, that is, the brutal nature of the attack and the

injuries suffered by the victim, and the unprovoked nature of the attack in that the victim was

simply riding public transportation, reading a book, and “minding her own business,” when the

defendant hit her so hard that he destroyed her eyeball and timed the attack so he could flee the

train at the next stop. The trial court observed that it was one of the worst cases it had seen. “A

trial judge does not operate in a bubble; [he] may take into account [his] own life and experience

in ruling on the evidence.” People v. Thomas, 377 Ill. App. 3d 950, 963 (2007).

¶ 69   The trial court was clearly trying to grapple with the horrific nature of the attack and the

fact that defendant inflicted a very similar attack on another victim a few months before, and

echoed the State’s arguments that this was a “senseless crime.” The trial court’s comments reflect

a consideration not of any improper speculative motives, but of the unprovoked, horrific nature of

the offense, the life-long impact on the victim, and the fact that defendant previously perpetrated

                                               - 26 -
No. 1-22-1177

another similar attack. A trial court may properly consider the particular nature of the crime in

fashioning its sentencing determination. Harmon, 2015 IL App (1st) 122345, ¶ 123. Moreover,

“evidence of other crimes is admissible at sentencing regardless of whether the defendant was

charged with or convicted of the crimes.” People v. Bilski, 33 Ill. App. 3d 808, 816 (2002). And,

in determining the length of a sentence within the statutory range, the trial court may consider the

degree of harm caused to a victim. People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 269 (1986).

¶ 70   With respect to defendant’s allegation that the trial court improperly held his silence at

sentencing against him, the passage above demonstrates that the trial court did not place any

improper reliance on this factor. Indeed, the trial court specifically stated that “it's his choice, he

doesn't have to, I won't hold it against him that he didn't” allocute at sentencing. It specifically did

not consider defendant’s silence as a sign of lack of rehabilitative potential or a lack of remorse.

The cases upon which defendant relies are distinguishable from the present circumstances.

Maggio, 2017 IL App (4th) 150287, ¶ 49 (trial court specifically considered defendant’s refusal to

answer questions during the pre-sentence investigation as evidence of lack of rehabilitative

potential); People v. Matute, 2020 IL App (2d) 170786, ¶¶ 56-59 (trial court stated that it was “a

bit disturbing” that defendant remained silent at sentencing and it “considered heavily” defendant’s

lack of remorse).

¶ 71   Accordingly, defendant has not shown that the trial court relied on any improper

considerations or that it abused its discretion in sentencing defendant. Defendant has not shown

that any clear or obvious error occurred warranting relief. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545.

¶ 72                            ii. Failure to Consider Mitigation Evidence

                                                 - 27 -
No. 1-22-1177

¶ 73    Defendant next argues that his sentence was an abuse of discretion because the trial court

ignored certain evidence in mitigation, namely, (1) that his mental health challenges resulted in

the instant offense, and (2) his rehabilitative potential as shown by the fact that he had not

committed any new offenses since this one. Defendant argues that the trial court refused to even

consider the mitigating factors, instead insisting that the offense had no explicable motive other

than hate and did not acknowledge that defendant had increased rehabilitative potential because

his mental health issues were going into remission and he had not committed any other offenses.

¶ 74    As previously set forth, during mitigation, defense counsel informed the trial court that two

defense experts had found defendant legally insane at the time of the offense, he had been

diagnosed with a “bipolar type of schizophrenic disorder,” his strange behavior began in 2018 in

conjunction with attending a church where some people were a negative influence on him, he

began hearing voices and had “preoccupations” which led to the two attacks or “aberrations,” and

he had not committed any crimes since and had strong family support.

¶ 75    Thus, these factors were plainly before the trial court at sentencing. Although defendant

argues on appeal that the trial court simply “ignored” this evidence, the trial court’s statements do

not support this assertion. When going over the various factors it considered in sentencing

defendant, the trial court stated that it had “I read the presentence investigation. I've listened to the

arguments of Ms. De Yoe [defense counsel]***.”

¶ 76    Even so, the trial court was not required to find that defendant’s mental health struggles

served as a mitigating factor. A trial court may consider mental health issues as aggravating or

mitigating factors, depending “on whether the individual hearing the evidence finds that it evokes

compassion or demonstrates possible future dangerousness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

                                                 - 28 -
No. 1-22-1177

People v. Madej, 177 Ill.2d 116, 139 (1997). Further, although defendant emphasizes his

rehabilitative potential by virtue of not committing more offenses while imprisoned, “good

behavior in prison need not offset otherwise substantial aggravating evidence against the

defendant.” People v. Ballard, 206 Ill. 2d 151, 189 (2002).

¶ 77   “While the court may not disregard mitigating evidence, it determines the weight of such

evidence. *** We presume the court considered all mitigating factors on the record absent an

affirmative indication to the contrary.” Contursi, 2019 IL App (1st) 162894, ¶ 24. This was not a

case, contrary to defendant’s contention, where the trial court refused to even consider mitigation.

See People v. Calhoun, 404 Ill. App. 3d 362, 386 (2010) (trial court failed to consider the statutory

sentencing factor—whether the defendant acted under a “strong provocation”—in mitigation,

where the defendant killed the victim upon learning the victim had sexually assaulted her infant

daughter).

¶ 78   Here, there was no affirmative indication that the trial court disregarded or refused to

consider these mitigating factors. Rather, the trial court acknowledged that it considered the

mitigating factors, but that the other factors in aggravation, such as the nature of the offense and

the fact that defendant engaged in two similar attacks within a few months of each other, carried

more weight. “The most important sentencing factor is the seriousness of the offense, and the court

need not give greater weight to rehabilitation or mitigating factors than to the severity of the

offense.” Contursi, 2019 IL App (1st) 162894, ¶ 24.

¶ 79   In summary, defendant has failed to show any abuse of discretion by the trial court in

sentencing defendant within the applicable range to seven years’ imprisonment. Defendant has not

demonstrated that his sentence was greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law or

                                               - 29 -
No. 1-22-1177

manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense. Contursi, 2019 IL App (1st) 162894, ¶ 23.

As he has failed to show that any clear or obvious sentencing error occurred, he is not entitled to

relief from his procedural default. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545.

¶ 80                           C. Conviction in Case Number 07 CR 22337

¶ 81   On March 27, 2008, defendant plead guilty to AUUW in violation of 720 ILCS 5/24-

1.6(a)(1)/(a)(3)(A) (West 2008) and was sentenced to 35 months’ imprisonment. Defendant seeks

to have this court vacate that conviction, and the State agrees. Defendant has supplemented the

record on appeal with the mittimus and charging instruments in Cook County Case No. 07 CR

223701, which shows that defendant was sentenced to 35 months’ imprisonment for AUUW under

section 24-1.6(a)(1)/(3)(A). Based on In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, and People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL

112116, we find that defendant’s conviction for AUUW under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)/(a)(3)(A),

should be vacated, and we accept the State’s concession.

See also People v. Cross, 2019 IL App (1st) 162108, ¶ 187.

¶ 82                                     III. CONCLUSION

¶ 83   For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. In

addition, we vacate defendant’s conviction for AUUW in Cook County Case No. 07 CR 22337.

¶ 84   Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

                                                - 30 -