People v. Collins

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: ROCHFORD PRESIDING JUSTICE
• Citation: 2024 IL App (1st) 221139 U
• Docket Number: 1-22-1139
• Decision Date: 29 February 2024
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEEQWAN COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

1

2024 IL App (1st) 221139-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEEQWAN COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-22-1139

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division

February 29, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 21 CR 1768 Honorable Charles P. Burns, Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hoffman and Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

ROCHFORD PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: We affirmed defendant's sentence where the trial court neither improperly considered an element of the offense in aggravation nor abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to a prison term of seven years and six months for residential burglary.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant Deeqwan Collins was convicted of residential burglary and sentenced to a prison term of seven years and six months. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court improperly considered an element of the offense in aggravation at sentencing erroneously considered his pretrial sentencing credit in determining the length of his sentence, and imposed an excessive sentence that did not properly consider his rehabilitative potential. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) West 2018)) for, on or about June 4-5, 2019, knowingly and without authority entering the dwelling of Neal Weisenburger with the intent to commit theft therein. Defendant was arrested for the offense in January 2021.

¶ 4 The evidence at the April 2022 trial was that someone entered Weisenburger's home on the night in question while he and others were sleeping there. Weisenburger testified that, on the morning of June 5, 2019, he noticed that his "personal electronics" (including a laptop computer, tablet, and smartphone) that had been there in the evening were gone and an unfamiliar plastic bottle was there. Before calling the police, Weisenburger confirmed that nobody in the home took the electronics or left the bottle. Weisenburger did not know defendant, who did not have his permission to be in his home or remove any items on June 5, 2019. A buccal swab from defendant established that he was included as a possible source of the DNA from the bottle, as "the DNA profile developed from the juice bottle is expected to occur approximately 1 in 1.2 septillion *** unrelated individuals." Following instructions and argument, the jury found defendant guilty of residential burglary.

¶ 5 Defendant's presentencing investigation report (PSI) stated that he was born in March 1993 and had a prior conviction for burglary in 2018, three offenses of criminal trespass in 2017, 2018, and 2020, and retail theft under $300 in 2017. For the burglary conviction, he received two years' of second chance probation pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5-6-3.4(a) (West 2018) completed satisfactorily in 2020. Defendant received six months' conditional discharge for one criminal trespass offense and jail terms of 2 or 10 days for the other three convictions.

¶ 6 According to the PSI, defendant never knew his father, his mother used drugs throughout his childhood, "he was a part of DCFS as a child because his mother burned his feet in a hot tub" and she "was unfit to raise him and his siblings." While he was manipulated and abused physically and emotionally as a child and had no support from his parents, he had "a very good relationship with his siblings." Defendant completed the 11th grade but lost motivation to complete high school when his grandmother died. He stated he had "plans on earning a GED in the future." Other than "odd jobs," he worked one month as a forklift operator for $18.50 hourly. He was married with one daughter, had "a beautiful relationship with his child," and felt "his wife is his only supporting relationship." He lived with his family at the address on the PSI for about four months, they had to leave previous lodgings due to unpaid rent, and he lived in a "rough" or violent neighborhood but felt safe. He had no close friends, and he was not in a gang. He denied having ill health physically or mentally and denied abusing alcohol or drugs.

¶ 7 At the June 2022 sentencing hearing, the State amended the PSI to add a second prior conviction for burglary to which defendant pled guilty on the same day as the 2018 burglary conviction already in the PSI, received the same sentence of second chance probation, and also completed that probation satisfactorily in 2020. Defendant was on probation for the two buglaries at the time he committed the instant offense. The State argued that defendant should receive six to eight years in prison.

¶ 8 Defendant's wife Adriannia Collins addressed the court, stating that he was a good father to his own daughter and to his stepdaughter. She explained that defendant helped her through severe depression, his "personal upbringing, professional experiences, and academic background" limited him to "extremely temporary and *** uncertain" odd jobs, and he was now improving himself both financially (with an improved credit score) and spiritually. Defendant's brother submitted a letter describing defendant's childhood when he was in poverty and how, after his grandmother died, defendant became isolated until he met Adriannia, and has recovered his purpose in life with his new family. Counsel argued that defendant made "a whole different commitment to his life" in the interim between committing this offense in 2019 and when he was charged, and sought the minimum sentence of four years in prison. Defendant declined to address the court personally.

¶ 9 The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of seven years and six months. In imposing sentence, the court stated that it considered statutory and non-statutory aggravating and mitigating factors, including the support of defendant's family, that he had a history of employment, and that he "had less than a favorable childhood" with "domestic abuse." The court noted that "[t]his is a mandatory sentence. As we know residential burglary is a Class 1 felony, nonprobationable. I think it's a reasoning of the legislature that there should be increased penalties for someone that invades the province of one's home as compared to the province of one's garage, office or even a car."

¶ 10 The court explained that it was concerned about "a couple different things. No. 1, defendant did that while he was on two separate probations, two separate probations for burglary. *** I'm particularly concerned about the fact that he is on probation for burglary when he committed this offense. He has isolated misdemeanor cases which is concerning to me, *** three separate criminal trespasses. Also, a retail theft. Albeit that was a misdemeanor." The court noted that on the other hand, "his wife and his brother seem[] to paint a different picture." The court expressly found that a sentence at the higher end of the range was inappropriate and would not properly account for the mitigating factors but the minimum sentence was also inappropriate as the offense was committed while defendant was on probation.

¶ 11 The court imposed a term of seven and a half years' imprisonment. It then asked about defendant's pretrial detention credit. Defense counsel told the court that defendant had 248 days on electronic monitoring and in custody, "and pursuant to the statute, which indicates with 12 hours of home confinement there is an additional 279." The court asked "did I have him on 11 hours a day or did I have him on 24 hours a day" and then awarded "527 days time considered served." The mittimus reflects credit for 527 days.

¶ 12 Defendant timely filed a motion to reconsider his sentence. In the motion, he argued that his sentence was excessive, the trial court did not consider all mitigating factors, and the court considered in aggravation matters inherent to the offense. The court denied the motion after brief argument. In finding the sentence "commensurate with all the factors in aggravation [and] mitigation," the court stated "I'm giving defendant credit for well in excess of a year and a half that he spent walking the streets both on pretrial and on electronic home monitoring."

¶ 13 On appeal, defendant first contends that, in imposing sentence, the trial court improperly considered an element of the residential burglary offense in aggravation, specifically that defendant entered a home during commission of the offense.^[1] He also contends the court erroneously considered his pretrial detention credit in determining the length of his sentence.

¶ 14 The trial court may not consider a factor inherent in the offense in aggravation, but it is appropriate to consider the degree and gravity of the defendant's conduct including the threat of harm to the public. People v. Jeffers, 2022 IL App (2d) 210236, ¶¶ 25-27 (citing People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill.2d 256, 271-72 (1986)). The court is not required to refrain from mentioning factors that constitute elements of the offense. Id. ¶ 24. There is a strong presumption that the court based its sentencing determination on proper legal reasoning, and we must consider the record as a whole rather than isolated remarks. Id. The defendant bears the burden of showing that the trial court improperly considered in aggravation a factor inherent in the offense. Id. We review de novo whether the court considered a factor inherent in the offense. Id. ¶ 23.

¶ 15 Here, taking the court's sentencing remarks as a whole, it is apparent that the court was not considering defendant's entry into a home as an aggravating factor...