Court Opinion

ID: 9381424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 20:04:27.347543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.470646
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                    2023 IL App (4th) 220199-U
This Order was filed under
                                                                                         FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                         March 21, 2023
                                             NO. 4-22-0199
not precedent except in the                                                           Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed                                                     4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1).                 IN THE APPELLATE COURT                             Court, IL

                                             OF ILLINOIS

                                         FOURTH DISTRICT

   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                         )     Appeal from the
              Plaintiff-Appellee,                               )     Circuit Court of
              v.                                                )     Peoria County
   DEONTRAY JOHNSON,                                            )     No. 12CF1040.
              Defendant-Appellant.                              )
                                                                )     Honorable
                                                                )     Kevin Lyons,
                                                                )     Judge Presiding.

                   JUSTICE DOHERTY delivered the judgment of the court.
                   Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

                                                ORDER

  ¶1        Held: Defendant’s 36-year sentence for first degree murder is affirmed where it is within
                  the statutory range and the trial court properly considered relevant factors and
                  evidence in mitigation and aggravation before imposing sentence.

  ¶2               Following a jury trial, defendant Deontray Johnson was found guilty of first degree

  murder and of personally discharging a firearm that proximately caused the death of another

  person. Defendant was sentenced to 36 years in prison for first degree murder. On appeal,

  defendant claims that his sentence is excessive because the trial court failed to give adequate

  weight to mitigating evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. For the reasons that follow, we

  affirm.

  ¶3                                       I. BACKGROUND

  ¶4               The underlying facts of this case are adequately set out in the Third District

  Appellate Court’s original decision in this case. See People v. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130543-
U. Therefore, we set out only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal. Following a 2013 jury

trial, defendant was found guilty of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1),(2) (West 2012))

and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1) (West 2012)). The jury made

a separate finding that, during the commission of first degree murder, defendant personally

discharged a firearm that proximately caused death to another person (730 ILCS 5/5-8-

1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2012)). The evidence presented at trial established that the shooting happened

when defendant was out with friends during the early-morning hours of June 19, 2012. One of the

individuals with defendant at a night club got into an altercation with the victim, Robreco King.

The argument continued outside of the club, where defendant and other individuals became

involved. At some point during the altercation, defendant shot the unarmed victim in the back,

resulting in his death. Defendant was initially given a cumulative sentence of 80 years in prison:

50 years in prison for murder plus a 30-year enhancement for personally discharging a firearm.

The Third District Appellate Court affirmed that conviction and sentence on appeal. See Johnson,

2015 IL App (3d) 130543-U.

¶5             Our supreme court then issued a supervisory order directing the appellate court to

vacate its prior judgment and “consider the effect of this Court’s opinions in People v. Buffer, 2019

IL 122327, and People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, on the issue of whether defendant’s sentence

constitutes a de facto life sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Miller v. Alabama,

567 U.S. 460 (2012), and determine if a different result is warranted.” The Third District Appellate

Court vacated its prior decision and issued a new judgment affirming defendant’s conviction but

vacating his 80-year sentence and remanding the case to the trial court for a new sentencing

hearing. People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (3d) 130543-B. The Third District Appellate Court

directed the trial court to “consider defendant’s youth and its attendant characteristics as required

                                                -2-
in Miller” and instructed that on remand, defendant was “entitled to be sentenced under the juvenile

sentencing scheme prescribed by section 5-4.5-105 of the Unified Code of Corrections.” Id. at

¶ 35.

¶6             An updated presentence investigation report (PSI) was filed prior to the new

sentencing hearing. The PSI showed that in 2019, while defendant was in custody for the murder

conviction, he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance in a penal institution

and received an additional five-year sentence. The PSI also shows that several incident reports

were issued while defendant was in custody arising from his refusal to follow the orders of jail

staff. Defendant’s juvenile delinquency history included aggravated robbery, a curfew violation,

disorderly conduct, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle. While incarcerated, defendant was

prescribed medications for depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder, and he was placed on suicide

watch on several occasions. Defendant reported that he was working to earn his GED while in

custody and that he was close to his family and girlfriend. Defendant’s girlfriend submitted a

supportive letter stating that she had known defendant for approximately 10 years and that he was

a loving person who had grown and changed for the better. The PSI also included a victim impact

statement submitted by the victim’s mother and a letter in mitigation submitted by defendant’s

sister.

¶7             The sentencing hearing was held on May 12, 2021. The victim’s mother testified

by reading her victim impact statement, in which she related that the victim was her first child and

she and her family loved him “more than anything.” She explained that her family and the entire

community were “devastated” when her son was killed, and she felt that defendant acted

“cowardly” when he made a “conscious decision” to shoot and kill her son.

                                               -3-
¶8              Dr. James Garbarino, a professor of psychology and human development,

submitted a mitigation report and testified on defendant’s behalf. The doctor explained that

“developmental psychology” involves the processes by which human beings become social,

cultural, and psychological beings over the course of a lifetime. The doctor specialized in

childhood and adolescent development and the impact of trauma, violence, and other adverse

factors. The trial court admitted Dr. Garbarino as an expert in the field of developmental

psychology.

¶9             In preparation for his report and testimony, Dr. Garbarino reviewed the PSI, the

transcript from the prior sentencing hearing, and reports generated by police and jail personnel. He

did not review the trial transcript and did not personally meet with defendant. Dr. Garbarino

communicated with defendant in writing, which included having defendant answer 10 written

questions known as the “Adverse Childhood Experiences” (ACE) questionnaire. Defendant scored

6 out of 10 on the ACE questionnaire, which indicated he had adversity issues from psychological

maltreatment, physical abuse, physical neglect, parental separation, living with a substance abuser,

and living with a household member who went to prison. Dr. Garbarino testified that defendant’s

score was “high” and greater than approximately 97 out of 100 adolescents. However, defendant’s

score was “not as high” as many individuals who are incarcerated for murder, who average a score

of 7 and sometimes score a 9 or 10. Defendant’s score indicated that “he experienced a lot of

adversity” as he grew up, “not as much as some others, but still worse than, you know, 96 out of

100 people growing up.”

¶ 10           Dr. Garbarino testified that he was familiar with the United States Supreme Court’s

decision in Miller and the sentencing factors a court must consider related to “youth and their

attending characteristics.” The doctor explained that the first factor, “immaturity and impetuosity,”

                                                -4-
is based on the notion that adolescent brains do not mature until age 25; consequently, adolescents

have a reduced capacity to consider the future consequences of their actions. The second factor,

“family and home environment,” is based on the notion that brain development is affected by the

quality of social experiences. The third factor is the “circumstances of the offense,” which includes

the role that youth played in the incident and the influence of peer pressure. Dr. Garbarino testified

that the mere presence of peers, even without overt pressure, can result in deteriorating decision-

making function in teenagers. The fourth factor is “impaired legal competence,” and it recognizes

that youth are at a disadvantage when dealing with police or legal proceedings. The fifth factor is

the “youth’s potential for rehabilitation,” which Dr. Garbarino believed was the most important

consideration. This factor is based on research indicating that it is “almost impossible” to predict

the capacity for rehabilitation based on negative behavior exhibited as a teenager. Dr. Garbarino

explained that “many youth who commit horrible, violent crimes as teenagers over a period of 20

years or more do engage in rehabilitation and emerge not just safe, but in some cases are

remarkably transformed.” This principle is important because it goes to the “core of the Miller

decision which was that mandatory life without parole for teenagers shouldn’t be happening and

certainly is not something that is justified by the crimes they commit.” Dr. Garbarino believed that

although Miller involved a mandatory life sentence without parole, the “developmental

perspective” at the core of that decision was relevant to de facto life sentences such as the one

defendant originally received in this case.

¶ 11           Dr. Garbarino applied the Miller factors to defendant’s case in reaching his ultimate

conclusions. The doctor testified that defendant demonstrated behavior as a youth, including the

murder, that reflected immature thinking and lack of emotional control. Defendant’s “adolescent

brain at age 17 undermined his ability to make good decisions.” Defendant reported disturbing

                                                -5-
childhood trauma, and the high level of adversity he experienced in childhood was “exactly the

kind of family situation the Supreme Court had in mind in [Miller].” Defendant was with a group

of youths when the crime took place, and he now sees the negative effect that these people had on

him. Further, although defendant continued to deny that he was the shooter, he acknowledged that

he was “present.” At 17 years old, defendant was also not able to meaningfully assist with his

defense in court. Defendant’s future criminal behavior could not be accurately predicted at that

age because there was no correlation between his behavior during the offense and his prospects

for rehabilitation.

¶ 12            Dr. Garbarino opined that defendant had the capacity for rehabilitation when the

crime occurred and that, in the intervening eight years, he had demonstrated such potential.

Defendant had shown greater insight, decision-making ability, and emotional intelligence.

Defendant was not irreparably damaged or a psychopath and did not suffer from antisocial

personality disorder. Ultimately, Dr. Garbarino believed that defendant had rehabilitative potential

and that he should be resentenced to a term that would allow him to be released and become a

productive member of society.

¶ 13            Dr. Garbarino acknowledged that defendant’s rehabilitation and improved

decision-making and emotional intelligence were “certainly not complete.” Defendant had

engaged in “problematic” behavior “at least until very recently,” and he “certainly has a long way

to go.” Additionally, defendant’s ongoing mental health issues, which could explain his negative

behavior in prison, were a “point of concern.”

¶ 14            Under questioning by the trial court, Dr. Garbarino testified that a sentence of 20

years’ imprisonment is sufficient for most individuals. After 20 years, most of those individuals

demonstrate that continuing to incarcerate them was a “waste of everybody’s time.” Dr. Garbarino

                                                 -6-
noted that individuals with longer or life sentences had less access to education and other programs,

whereas inmates with shorter sentences had greater access to these programs and greater

motivation to improve because they knew they were “leaving at some point.”

¶ 15           In allocution, defendant stated that his past conduct reflected poor decision-making

and that he made a “mistake” and “picked the wrong crowd” of friends, which “led to these

charges.” Defendant apologized to both his family and the victim’s family, and he expressed regret

that the “crime occurred.” He acknowledged that he was present at the scene and “accept[ed]” that

he had been “found guilty” but maintained that he did not shoot the victim. Defendant stated that

he had made “foolish,” “selfish,” and “immature” decisions in the past but maintained that he had

since “grown and matured.”

¶ 16           Before announcing sentence, the trial court stated that it had considered the PSI,

defendant’s allocution statement, the testimony provided by defendant’s witnesses, the statutory

factors in aggravation and mitigation, defendant’s history and character, and “those factors that are

relevant and pertinent with regard to Miller v. Alabama and 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105.” The court also

noted that defendant was eligible for parole 20 years after he began serving his sentence (730

ILCS5/5-4.5 (West 2020)), making his first parole hearing approximately 10 years from the date

of resentencing.

¶ 17           The trial court stated that remarks defendant made to Dr. Garbarino and in court

indicated that defendant now had a different perspective. The court observed that “for the last

decade,” defendant had been in the prison system surrounded by people who were likely negative

influences and that, although he “very much” appeared to be an adult, defendant was still only 26

years old. Defendant was also with people “that may have had some impact” on him when he was

younger, and the court noted that “conduct that people engage in when other bad actors are around

                                                -7-
them is far different than when they’re by themselves.” The court was not sure “what the doctor

was saying today because psychology and analysis is blurry sometimes, but the upshot of it is that

a person is not in a position to make good decisions in a timely, well thought-out way when they’re

17 or 16 or 15. In fact, [they] should not be able to do that for ten years or so.” However, the court

also stated that the facts of the case had not changed, in that a person was “still dead,” and the

“ugliness” of the crime would not “fade away” for the victim’s family. The court concluded that

it was not going to make “particular findings point by point,” but that it had considered the “factors

that are available” and recognized defendant’s age at the time of the offense. However, defendant

“decided to be there” and to possess a weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to 36 years’

imprisonment for first degree murder followed by 3 years of mandatory supervised release. The

court chose not to impose a sentencing enhancement for personally discharging a firearm that

proximately caused the death of another person. The court subsequently denied defendant’s motion

to reconsider his sentence.

¶ 18           This appeal followed.

¶ 19                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 20           Defendant contends that the 36-year sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive

and an abuse of discretion. Defendant claims that the court overlooked or failed to consider Dr.

Garbarino’s testimony as to the sentence defendant should receive and that the court failed to give

due weight to other mitigating factors that warranted a lesser sentence.

¶ 21           A trial court has broad discretion in imposing a sentence, and its sentencing

decisions are entitled to great deference and weight. People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 212

(2010). A sentence within the permissible statutory range is presumed to be proper; a reviewing

court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and alter that sentence absent an

                                                -8-
abuse of discretion. Id.; People v. Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th) 170035, ¶ 104. An abuse of

discretion occurs only when the sentence imposed is “greatly at variance with the spirit and

purpose of the law, or manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.” People v. Stacey,

193 Ill. 2d 203, 210 (2000).

¶ 22           The trial court must base its sentencing determination upon the circumstances of

each case and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, including the nature of the offense

and the defendant’s character, age, and rehabilitative potential. People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48, 55

(1999). However, the weight to given to these factors and the balance to struck between them are

matters committed to the trial court’s discretion. Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th), ¶ 104; People v.

Crenshaw, 2011 IL App (4th) 090908, ¶ 24. Likewise, the credibility of witnesses and the weight

given to their testimony are also committed to the trial court’s discretion. People v. Brown, 2015

IL App (1st) 130048, ¶ 31. A reviewing court gives great deference to the trial court in these

matters “because the trial judge, having observed the defendant and the proceedings, has a far

better opportunity to consider these factors than the reviewing court, which must rely on the ‘cold’

record.” Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 53. “The trial judge has the opportunity to weigh such factors as the

defendant's credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits,

and age. [Citations.] Consequently, the reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that

of the trial court merely because it would have weighed these factors differently. [Citation.].”

Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d at 209.

¶ 23           In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that the eighth amendment forbids

a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile

offenders. Miller, 567 U.S. at 479. Although the court did not reach the question of whether the

eighth amendment requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles, the court stated

                                               -9-
that such sentences should be uncommon given “children’s diminished culpability and heightened

capacity for change.” Id. This was particularly the case given the “great difficulty *** of

distinguishing at this early age between ‘the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate

yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable

corruption.’ ” Id. at 479-480 (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005)). The court

therefore required sentencing courts to “take into account how children are different, and how

those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480.

¶ 24           After Miller, our legislature enacted section 5-4.5-105 of the Unified Code of

Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105 (West 2016)). In relevant part, that section provides

that when a person who is under 18 years of age commits an offense, the trial court “shall consider”

the following mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence:

                         “(1) the person’s age, impetuosity, and level of maturity at the time

               of the offense, including the ability to consider risks and consequences of

               behavior, and the presence of cognitive or developmental disability, or both,

               if any;

                         (2) whether the person was subjected to outside pressure, including

               peer pressure, familial pressure, or negative influences;

                         (3) the person’s family, home environment, educational and social

               background, including any history of parental neglect, physical abuse, or

               other childhood trauma;

                         (4) the person’s potential for rehabilitation or evidence of

               rehabilitation, or both;

                         (5) the circumstances of the offense;

                                                 - 10 -
                       (6) the person’s degree of participation and specific role in the

               offense, including the level of planning by the defendant before the offense;

                       (7) whether the person was able to meaningfully participate in his or

               her defense;

                       (8) the person’s prior juvenile or criminal history; and

                       (9) any other information the court finds relevant and reliable,

               including an expression of remorse, if appropriate. However, if the person,

               on advice of counsel chooses not to make a statement, the court shall not

               consider a lack of an expression of remorse as an aggravating factor.” 730

               ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(a) (West 2016)).

This section also gives the trial court discretion to “decline to impose any otherwise applicable

sentencing enhancement based upon firearm possession *** with personal discharge that

proximately causes *** death to another person.” 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(b) (West 2016)). Finally,

the statute provides that “if the defendant is convicted of first degree murder and would otherwise

be subject to sentencing under clause (iii), (iv), (v), or (vii) of subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1)

of subsection (a) of Section 5-8-1 of this Code based on the category of persons identified therein,

the court shall impose a sentence of not less than 40 years of imprisonment.” 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-

105(c) (West 2016)).

¶ 25           In addition, section 5-4.5-115 of the Code governs parole for persons who are under

the age of 21 at the time of the commission of the offense. See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115(b) (West

2020)). That section states, in relevant part, that “[a] person under 21 years of age at the time of

the commission of first degree murder who is sentenced on or after June 1, 2019 *** shall be

eligible for parole review *** after serving 20 years or more of his or her sentence.” Id.

                                               - 11 -
¶ 26            Our supreme court held that, in light of Miller and its progeny, “sentencing a

juvenile offender to a mandatory term of years that is the functional equivalent of life without the

possibility of parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth

amendment.” See People v. Reyes, 2016 IL 119271, ¶ 9. Then, in Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶¶ 38,

40, the court recognized that Miller was not limited to mandatory life sentences and that life

sentences for a juvenile offender, whether discretionary or mandatory, violate the eighth

amendment unless the trial court considers “youth and its attendant characteristics.” The court held

that “Miller applies to discretionary sentences of life without parole for juvenile defendants.” Id.

¶ 40. The court then adopted an analytic approach, which required the trial court to specifically

consider the characteristics mentioned in Miller, and it summarized the law regarding sentencing

a juvenile to life in prison as follows:

                        “Under Miller and Montgomery[ v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190

                (2016))], a juvenile defendant may be sentenced to life imprisonment

                without parole, but only if the trial court determines that the defendant’s

                conduct showed irretrievable depravity, permanent incorrigibility, or

                irreparable corruption beyond the possibility of rehabilitation. The court

                may make that decision only after considering the defendant’s youth and its

                attendant characteristics. Those characteristics include, but are not limited

                to, the following factors: (1) the juvenile defendant's chronological age at

                the time of the offense and any evidence of his particular immaturity,

                impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences; (2) the

                juvenile defendant’s family and home environment; (3) the juvenile

                defendant’s degree of participation in the homicide and any evidence of

                                               - 12 -
               familial or peer pressures that may have affected him; (4) the juvenile

               defendant’s incompetence, including his inability to deal with police

               officers or prosecutors and his incapacity to assist his own attorneys; and

               (5) the juvenile defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation.” Id. ¶¶ 46.

¶ 27           Finally, in Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 29, the supreme court considered when a

defendant’s prison sentence is long enough to be considered a de facto life sentence without parole.

The court noted that by enacting section 5-4-105 of the Code, the legislature “determined that the

specified first degree murders that would justify natural life imprisonment for adult offenders

would warrant a mandatory minimum sentence of 40 years for juvenile offenders.” Id. ¶ 39. The

court held that “a prison sentence of 40 years or less imposed on a juvenile offender does not

constitute a de facto life sentence in violation of the eighth amendment,” observing that this

holding was rooted in the legislature’s determination and provided juvenile offenders a

“meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

[Citation.]” Id. ¶¶ 40-41.

¶ 28           Turning to the present case, we initially note that the parties do not dispute that

defendant was subject to a cumulative sentence of between 20 and 80 years’ imprisonment and

that a sentence greater than 40 years would be a de facto life sentence for him. The trial court

sentenced defendant to 36 years in prison for first degree murder but declined to impose a

sentencing enhancement for having personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused the

death of the victim. Defendant therefore does not contend that his 36-year sentence is a de facto

life sentence, nor does he dispute that his sentence falls within the statutorily permissible range.

Accordingly, we presume that his sentence is proper, and we will not alter that sentence unless it

                                               - 13 -
is greatly at variance with the purpose and spirit of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the

offense. See Crenshaw, 2011 IL App (4th) 090908, ¶ 22.

¶ 29           Defendant claims that the trial court failed to consider Dr. Garbarino’s testimony

that a sentence of greater than 20 years was unnecessary in order for defendant to be rehabilitated

and returned to his community. Defendant asserts that because the court did not impose a de facto

life sentence, it must have believed the doctor’s testimony that defendant was not permanently

incorrigible or otherwise deserving of a life sentence. Therefore, because the court credited this

portion of Dr. Garbarino’s testimony, defendant claims it was an abuse of discretion for the court

to “overlook or reject” Dr. Garbarino’s opinion regarding the sentence defendant should receive.

We disagree.

¶ 30           The trial court’s comments indicate that it considered the doctor’s testimony before

determining the appropriate sentence. The court’s comments indicate that it also considered the

other evidence presented at sentencing as it related to the factors set forth in Miller and codified in

section 5-4.50-105 of the Code. As the finder of fact, it was the trial court’s responsibility to

determine the credibility of the witnesses, including Dr. Garbarino, and to assign weight to their

testimony. See Fern, 189 Ill. 2d at 53; People v. Calahan, 272 Ill. App. 3d 293, 297 (1995). Based

on the sentence imposed, it is evident that the court did not believe defendant was in that rare class

of people whose conduct showed “irreparable corruption beyond the possibility of rehabilitation”

who are deserving of a life sentence. See Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46. Even if the trial court

arrived at this determination by crediting a portion of Dr. Garbarino’s testimony on that issue, the

court was not required to accept his testimony that a sentence of greater than 20 years for defendant

was unnecessary. As the fact finder, the trial court had discretion to accept part and reject part of

the doctor’s testimony. See People v. Tara, 367 Ill. App. 3d 479, 489 (2006) (“[T]he trial court is

                                                - 14 -
free to accept or reject expert testimony in whole or in part.”). Therefore, the fact that the court

apparently rejected Dr. Garbarino’s sentencing recommendation and instead imposed a 36-year

sentence does not establish that the court abused its discretion. Surely a court does not cede its

sentencing authority or discretion to an expert just because it may agree with the expert in certain

respects.

¶ 31           Defendant also claims that his sentence is excessive because the trial court did not

give proper weight to the factors set forth in Miller and in section 5-4.5-105 of the Code. Defendant

points to his age, difficult upbringing, mental health issues, and “peer pressure” as mitigating

factors that contributed to his decision to shoot and kill the victim. Defendant argues that Dr.

Garbarino gave “unrebutted testimony” that these factors favored the imposition of a lenient

sentence.

¶ 32           All the mitigating evidence defendant points to was presented at the sentencing

hearing. This includes the testimony of the witnesses, the PSI, and defendant’s statement in

allocution. We presume that the trial court considered all relevant factors, including any mitigating

evidence, absent some explicit indication to the contrary. See People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App

(4th) 120388, ¶ 43. Moreover, “the trial court is not required to expressly indicate its consideration

of all mitigating factors and what weight each factor should be assigned.” Id. Although not required

to do so, the trial court made detailed comments in this case that make clear that it considered all

the evidence defendant now claims was ignored. The court specifically stated that, before

determining an appropriate sentence, it considered the PSI, the testimony of the witnesses,

defendant’s allocution statement, the statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation, defendant’s

history and character, and the relevant Miller factors. After reciting the evidence considered, but

before announcing the sentence, the court even noted that it was not going to make “particular

                                                - 15 -
findings point by point.” Indeed, a trial court is not required to recite and assign a value to each

factor it considered, nor is it required to detail for the record the precise process by which it

determined the appropriate sentence. Id.; People v. McGuire, 2017 IL App (4th) 150695, ¶ 38.

While there was certainly mitigating evidence presented at sentencing, the trial court is not

required to give that evidence greater weight than the seriousness of the offense or the factors in

aggravation. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 214; Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 42. Finally,

the fact that Dr. Garbarino’s testimony was unrebutted by another expert is of no consequence, as

the court was still free to disregard as much or as little of the doctor’s testimony as it saw fit. See

Tara, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 489 (“[T]he trial court need not accept the opinion of one expert even

where that expert’s testimony is not directly countered by the expert testimony of another.”).

¶ 33           Defendant also takes issue with the trial court “coming back to one circumstance

of the offense—the death of Robreco King.” Defendant acknowledges that this statement was

“legally correct,” but he claims that the court “could not legally allow that factor to outweigh all

of the circumstances surrounding the offense.” As defendant acknowledges, while a trial court may

not consider a factor inherent in the offense as an aggravating factor, a court may consider the

nature and circumstances of the offense, including the nature and extent of each element of the

offense, as aggravating factors. People v. James, 255 Ill. App. 3d 516, 532 (1993). When the record

from the sentencing hearing is considered as a whole, it is evident that this is what the trial court

considered and that it did not consider a factor inherent in the offense as an aggravating factor. See

People v. Fort, 229 Ill. App. 3d 336, 340 (1992) (“In determining the correctness of a sentence,

the reviewing court should not focus on a few words or statements made by the trial court, but it

is to consider the record as a whole.”).

                                                - 16 -
¶ 34           Ultimately, the record shows that the trial court considered the mitigating evidence

and the relevant sentencing factors. The court exercised its discretion and weighed that evidence

against the other evidence presented at the hearing and imposed a 36-year sentence. Defendant

points to nothing in the record except for the sentence he received as evidence that the court did

not consider the mitigating factors. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the sentence

imposed was an abuse of discretion.

¶ 35                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 36           For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 37           Affirmed.

                                              - 17 -