Court Opinion

ID: 9523608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:44:43.608072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:44.063834
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’BRIEN, dissenting: The sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for sentencing before a different judge because the trial court made a racial remark during sentencing that indicates he considered an improper factor. Specifically, during sentencing, the trial court engaged in the following colloquy with the defendant: “[The COURT]: Mr. Grimes, anything you wish to say? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir. *** I was trying to do something productive, something positive with my life. But on this particular incident, this one time, I had just got caught up in the street. I wish I hadn’t did it, but at that time it was something that I had to do to feed my family at that time [because] my check wasn’t adding up to what it suppose to added up. [The COURT]: *** I think that anybody that says that they’re going to justify this type of activity because they’re supporting a family is fooling themselves. Nor do I believe that this activity is primarily to support a drug habit. There’s no question that a lot of people that are involved in, you know, the sale and the distribution of drugs in the neighborhood may be addicted to drugs. That could be. But what I think that motivates people primarily to do stuff like this is money. There’s a lot of money rolling in when you’ve got people all over the streets just every 15, 20 minutes dropping by and [dropping] off 10, 15, 20 dollars to pick a little bag of heroin. Money. But even on the tape it’s clear there’s another way to support a family. On one of those tapes there were people out there, not African-American, in your community working, cutting grass or doing something, making a living to support their family while you and your co-conspirators were standing around with your drawers hanging down to your butt, all waiting for somebody to come by and drop off five dollars for a bag. People in your own neighborhood working. So to say that’s the only way to take care of your family is a lie. You [sic] fooling yourself. But guess what. You [sic] not fooling me.” (Emphasis added.) This case is similar to People v. Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d 1093, 1102 (1992). In Wardell, two defendants were convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault and attempted armed robbery. Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1095. During sentencing, the trial judge noted the armed robbery of one victim and the attempted armed robbery of another, and then stated: “ ‘You weren’t satisfied with that. You were going to have some more fun with some white girls.’ ” Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1097. The trial court then sentenced each defendant to a total of 69 years in prison. Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1097. The appellate court held that the sentencing judge “ ‘owes the same duty to the defendant to protect his own mind from the possible prejudicial effect of incompetent evidence that he would owe in protecting a jury from the same contaminating influence.’ ” Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1103, quoting People v. Riley, 376 Ill. 364, 369 (1941). The appellate court further held that “[w]e must assume that defendants’ race was considered by the judge ***. If it is on his tongue, it most assuredly must be on his mind.” Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1103. Noting that the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing when the sentencing judge relies on an improper factor Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1102), such as race, the appellate court vacated the defendants’ sentences and remanded for a new sentencing hearing Wardell, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 1103). The learned majority writes that the language used by the judge really does not matter because the outcome was appropriate. But, substantive due process and procedural due process are both important and each litigant deserves both, as well as the public, which deserves to see and hear both. Imagine that you were in this courtroom watching and hearing this sentencing. What would you think of the fairness of your court system? This is not an indictment of this particular trial judge. Perhaps, it was a slip of the tongue, a mistake. Still, comments from the bench about race, religion, gender, physical attributes are just plain wrong, no matter the outcome. This defendant deserves a new sentencing hearing with a different judge, so that the procedure and the outcome are both beyond reproach. I would vacate the sentence and remand to a different judge for sentencing.