Court Opinion

ID: 9896325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:07:55.263872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:42.101656
License: Public Domain

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).

                                          2023 IL App (3d) 210400-U

                                 Order filed November 8, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                     IN THE

                                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                               THIRD DISTRICT

                                                      2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                         )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                          )       of the Ninth Judicial Circuit,
                                                         )       Knox County, Illinois,
              Plaintiff-Appellee,                        )
                                                         )       Appeal No. 3-21-0400
              v.                                         )       Circuit No. 12-CF-24
                                                         )
      STERLING M. NICHOLSON,                             )       Honorable
                                                         )       Raymond A. Cavanaugh,
              Defendant-Appellant.                       )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Brennan and Hettel concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   ORDER

¶1          Held: The trial court complied with our mandate and did not abuse its discretion in
                  sentencing defendant on remand to 22½ years’ imprisonment.

¶2          Following postconviction proceedings, we remanded this case for resentencing. Defendant

     appeals his new sentence, arguing the trial court did not comply with our mandate and did not

     “neutralize the taint” of his constitutional violation. We affirm.

¶3                                           I. BACKGROUND
¶4          In this appeal, defendant challenges his sentence following a resentencing hearing in the

     trial court pursuant to our mandate in People v. Nicholson, 2021 IL App (3d) 180010. The facts of

     this case are detailed in our prior decisions, which we incorporate by reference. See People v.

     Nicholson, 2021 IL App (3d) 180010; People v. Nicholson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130463-U. We repeat

     only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal.

¶5          The State offered defendant plea deals, the most recent with a six-year sentence, but

     defendant rejected each offer. A jury later convicted defendant of aggravated domestic battery

     (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3 (West 2012)) against Mary Cannon. The trial court sentenced defendant, based

     on his criminal history, to a Class X term of 25 years’ imprisonment. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95 (West

     2012). During sentencing, defendant stated, “If I was informed of all this prior to when the State

     offered me the six years *** I would have considered the plea more earnestly.” In his

     postconviction petition, defendant claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his

     attorney failed to advise him he was eligible for a Class X sentence. Had he known of his eligibility

     for such a sentence, he would have accepted the State’s earlier offer of six years’ imprisonment.

     During postconviction proceedings, defendant testified that in considering the plea “more

     earnestly,” he meant, “if I’d known that all these things were possible, I most definitely would’ve

     took the six years, point-blank, and salvaged what remained of my life.” He learned for the first

     time at sentencing he could be sentenced up to 30 years’ imprisonment.

¶6          In defendant’s first postconviction appeal, we found he established a successful claim of

     ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.

     Nicholson, 2021 IL App (3d) 180010, ¶ 25. The resentencing hearing took place on June 17, 2021.

     After our mandate issued but before the resentencing hearing, Cannon passed away. The State

     presented new victim impact statements from Cannon and her son, Taylor Davis. (The State

                                                      2
     obtained Cannon’s second signed victim impact statement before her passing.) Cannon described

     living with a traumatic brain injury for the past nine years. Davis explained that his mother

     experienced a cognitive decline due to her injuries; her skull was fractured in 37 places, both her

     orbital bones were broken, her nose was broken, several of her teeth were knocked out, she

     suffered a concussion, had a cracked sternum, a broken rib, and a fractured pelvis. Defendant did

     not present any evidence in mitigation and did not make a statement in allocution.

¶7          In ruling, the trial court stated,

                            “Probably the biggest issue I take is with the assumption that Mr. Nicholson

                    if advised of the Class X potential sentencing, that he would have assumed or that

                    he would have accepted the offer and, therefore would have been—received only

                    six years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

                            I don’t know how we can make that assumption in hindsight. I don’t know

                    how we can give him the benefit of the bargain of a bargain that he rejected. That

                    he said, no. I’m not guilty.

                                                   ***

                            I think the truly troubling thing, Mr. Nicholson, is seeing that there’s

                    absolutely no remorse of record here.

                                                   ***

                            So I am finding that the great bodily injury took place to Ms. Cannon; that

                    she suffered a considerable amount for the remainder of her life; that the defendant

                    should be subject to an 85 percent sentence based on the great bodily injury finding.

                            I’m finding that—as far as factors in mitigation, I find none as to the

                    statutory factors. I do find the factor that the defendant has obtained an associate’s

                                                      3
            degree at Lake Land College during the last nine years of his incarceration and has

            no write-ups for infractions at the Department of Corrections.

                   As to aggravation factors, I do find factors 1, 3, and 7 exist. I also find that—

            well, I find that those three factors as were argued do exist because of the serious

            bodily injury that was inflicted on Ms. Cannon.

                                           ***

                   And what I’m struggling with is trying to decide as [counsel] said what is a

            fair sentence? What’s fair? Well, there’s nothing fair about this. There’s nothing

            fair to you, to the loss of society, of having you being out there being a productive

            member of society, to the loss of *** Ms. Cannon for the last nine years of her

            suffering, to the fact that she’s died now is indescribable. That’s not your—not

            attributable to you.

                   But what is is [sic] your ten prior felony convictions by my count, six prior

            Class 2 felonies, one prior conviction on a Class 1 felony. I think I counted maybe

            seven misdemeanors. And what I would interpret from *** Lafler [v. Cooper, 566

            U.S. 156 (2012)] *** and the Appellate Court’s ruling is that there needs to be

            something less as far as a sentence.

                   So what I’m gonna impose as a sentence is a 22 year and 6 month sentence

            at 85 percent with a finding of great bodily harm to be followed by *** four years

            mandatory supervised release.”

¶8   Defendant appeals.

¶9                                     II. ANALYSIS

                                              4
¶ 10          Defendant argues the trial court failed to comply with this court’s mandate because it

       disagreed he had suffered any constitutional violation, thereby modifying his sentence only

       slightly. Defendant also argues the trial court abused its discretion by fashioning a sentence which

       did not neutralize the taint of the constitutional violation. We address each issue in turn.

¶ 11                                    A. Compliance with the Mandate

¶ 12          Defendant argues this court should reduce defendant’s sentence outright or remand again

       for resentencing for failing to comply with our mandate. “Where directions from a reviewing court

       are specific, the court to which the cause is remanded has a positive duty to enter an order or decree

       in accordance with the directions contained in the mandate.” People v. Payne, 2018 IL App (3d)

       160105, ¶ 9. “A circuit court may disagree with the resolution of a case provided by a reviewing

       court, but once the reviewing court has rendered its decision and issued its mandate, it must be

       obeyed.” People v. Brown, 2022 IL 127201, ¶ 28. “Whether the trial judge complied with this

       court’s mandate is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Payne, 2018 IL App (3d) 160105,

       ¶ 9.

¶ 13          “Where a trial court is told to proceed in conformity with the reviewing court’s mandate,

       the trial court should consult the opinion to determine what the mandate requires.” Emerald

       Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board., 366 Ill. App. 3d 113, 118 (2006). Our mandate included

       the following instructions:

                      “The trial court has the discretion to impose a sentence that is either (1) equal to the

                      6 years offered by the State or (2) greater than it but less than the 25 years

                      [defendant] initially received. If it chooses the latter, the court should consider the

                      length of time already served on his current sentence. Finally, in exercising its

                      discretion, the court may consider facts relevant to the aggravated domestic battery

                                                         5
                      conviction offense that were revealed after [defendant’s] trial and sentencing

                      hearing.” (Emphasis in original.) Nicholson, 2021 IL App (3d) 180010, ¶ 25.

       The mandate clearly instructed the trial court to exercise its discretion in imposing a prison

       sentence greater than or equal to 6 years but less than 25 years.

¶ 14          We relied on Lafler, 566 U.S. 156, in determining the appropriate remedy on remand. That

       defendant was offered 51 to 85 months’ imprisonment in exchange for a guilty plea, but he rejected

       the plea offer on the advice of his attorney. Lafler, 566 U.S. at 160. After a jury trial, he was

       convicted and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 185 to 360 months’ imprisonment. Id.

       On appeal, the United States Supreme Court found the defendant had satisfied the standard for

       ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Id. at 174.

       In addressing the appropriate remedies to a sixth amendment violation, the Court stated:

                      “Sixth Amendment remedies should be ‘tailored to the injury suffered from the

                      constitutional violation and should not unnecessarily infringe on competing

                      interests.’ Thus, a remedy must ‘neutralize the taint’ of a constitutional violation,

                      while at the same time not grant a windfall to the defendant or needlessly squander

                      the considerable resources the State properly invested in the criminal prosecution.”

                      (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at 170.

¶ 15          As a remedy for defendants who decline a plea offer due to ineffective assistance of counsel

       and then receive a greater sentence following trial, “the court may exercise discretion in

       determining whether the defendant should receive the term of imprisonment the government

       offered in the plea, the sentence he received at trial, or something in between.” Id. at 171.

                              “In implementing a remedy *** the trial court must weigh various factors;

                      and the boundaries of proper discretion need not be defined here. Principles

                                                         6
                      elaborated over time in decisions of state and federal courts, and in statutes and

                      rules, will serve to give more complete guidance as to the factors that should bear

                      upon the exercise of the judge’s discretion. At this point, however, it suffices to

                      note two considerations that are of relevance.

                             First, a court may take account of a defendant’s earlier expressed

                      willingness, or unwillingness, to accept responsibility for his or her actions.

                      Second, it is not necessary here to decide as a constitutional rule that a judge is

                      required to prescind (that is to say disregard) any information concerning the crime

                      that was discovered after the plea offer was made. The time continuum makes it

                      difficult to restore the defendant and the prosecution to the precise positions they

                      occupied prior to the rejection of the plea offer, but that baseline can be consulted

                      in finding a remedy that does not require the prosecution to incur the expense of

                      conducting a new trial.” Id. at 171-72.

¶ 16          We instructed the trial court to exercise discretion in determining whether defendant should

       receive the prison term the government offered in the plea, the sentence he received at trial, or

       something in between, specifically to exercise discretion in fashioning a sentence greater than or

       equal to 6 but less than 25 years’ imprisonment. The trial court at resentencing exercised its

       sentencing discretion and sentenced defendant to a term between 6 and 25 years, thereby

       complying with our mandate and with Lafler.

¶ 17          Defendant argues the trial court disagreed he suffered a constitutional violation and

       furthermore disagreed with our mandate, to which he attributes his slightly reduced sentence. Even

       if we read the trial court’s comments as a statement of disagreement with our decision, the record

       nevertheless shows the court did what we instructed it to do. See Brown, 2022 IL 127201, ¶ 28.

                                                        7
       Moreover, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court disregarded the constitutional

       violation, because the trial court specifically commented on the unfairness of the situation to

       defendant. We find the court complied with our mandate.

¶ 18                               B. Neutralizing the Constitutional Violation

¶ 19          Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning a sentence on remand

       that did not “neutralize the taint” of the constitutional violation. The trial court has discretion to

       determine the correct remedy and therefore defendant’s sentence on remand. Lafler, 566 U.S. at

       171. The remedy must “neutralize the taint of the constitutional violation” without granting a

       windfall to defendant. Id. at 170. “Thus, we review the trial court’s decision to determine if it

       abused its discretion in fashioning a remedy that would neutralize the taint of the sixth amendment

       violation.” People v. Hudson, 2017 IL App (3d) 160225, ¶ 13. “An abuse of discretion will be

       found only when the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable or where no

       reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” People v. Chambers, 2016 IL

       117911, ¶ 68.

¶ 20          The Lafler court noted the purpose of resentencing in this type of case is to “neutralize the

       taint of the constitutional violation.” Lafler, 566 U.S. at 170. However, the Court also noted the

       factors for a trial court to consider in exercising its sentencing discretion and took care to not limit

       the bounds of this discretion. The Court specially noted a trial court may consider a defendant’s

       unwillingness to accept responsibility and is not required to disregard any information learned

       after the plea offer was made. Id. at 171-72. “The trial judge is in the best position to observe and

       weigh the myriad of factors involved in the sentencing process.” People v. Young, 124 Ill. 2d 147,

       160 (1988). “A trial court has wide latitude in sentencing a defendant, so long as it neither ignores

       relevant mitigating factors nor considers improper factors in aggravation.” People v. McGee, 2020

                                                          8
       IL App (2d) 180998, ¶ 8. “A sentence must be based on the particular circumstances of each case

       and depends on many factors, including the defendant's criminal history and the need to protect

       the public and provide a deterrent to crime.” Id.

¶ 21           The trial court here spent a great deal of time during the resentencing hearing explaining

       the sentence and reasons for it. At no point did defendant express remorse for his actions. He

       presented no evidence in mitigation, and the trial court found no statutory factors in mitigation

       applied. See 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1 (West 2020). However, the court did consider the fact defendant

       received a college degree while incarcerated and had no disciplinary write-ups. But the court found

       the following factors in aggravation applied: the defendant’s conduct caused or threatened serious

       harm; the defendant had a history of prior criminal activity; and the sentence was necessary to

       deter others from committing the same crime. 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(a)(1), (3), (7) (West 2020).

¶ 22           Defendant takes issue with the trial court appearing to use the original 25-year sentence as

       a resentencing baseline, rather than the 6-year plea offer. Nothing in the record, however, supports

       that the trial court utilized its original 25-year sentence as a baseline in fashioning the new sentence

       on remand. While the trial court can consider the plea offer as a baseline in attempting to restore

       defendant and the State to the positions they occupied before defendant rejected the plea offer, it

       is nevertheless free to consider a myriad of other pertinent factors in fashioning a new sentence.

       (supra ¶ 20; Lafler, 566 U.S. at 171-72).

¶ 23           Defendant relies on People v. Hudson, 2017 IL App (3d) 160225, for the proposition that

       his new sentence did not remedy the constitutional violation he suffered. However, Hudson is

       distinguishable. In that case, the trial court outright rejected the remedy a federal court found

       appropriate in the defendant’s habeas proceedings. Instead, it maintained the life sentence it

       originally imposed, thus providing no remedy at all for the constitutional violation.

                                                           9
¶ 24          Finally, we reiterate the trial court is in the best position to consider the various factors in

       sentencing defendant. In this case, the trial court imposed a 22½-year sentence after carefully

       considering the factors suggested by Lafler, the factors specified in our mandate, and the statutory

       factors in aggravation and mitigation. Ultimately, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

       crafting defendant’s reduced sentence; it complied with Lafler and the confines of our mandate.

¶ 25                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26          The judgment of the circuit court of Knox County is affirmed.

¶ 27          Affirmed.

                                                        10