People v. McGee

• Decision Date: 29 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2-18-0998,2-18-0998
• Citation: 177 N.E.3d 29,448 Ill.Dec. 523,2020 IL App (2d) 180998
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Liedgrin E. MCGEE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (2d) 180998
177 N.E.3d 29
448 Ill.Dec. 523

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Liedgrin E. MCGEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-18-0998

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed December 29, 2020

James E. Chadd and Thomas A. Lilien, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin (David J. Giesinger, of Crystal Lake, of counsel), for appellant.

Robert B. Berlin, State's Attorney, of Wheaton (Lisa Anne Hoffman and Mary A. Fleming, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

448 Ill.Dec. 524

¶ 1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Du Page County, defendant, Liedgrin E. McGee, was found guilty of retail theft of property worth less than $300 ( 720 ILCS 5/16-25(a)(1) (West 2016)) and was sentenced to an extended-term sentence of four years' imprisonment. Defendant argues on appeal that the sentence was excessive. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant's retail theft conviction was based on evidence that he stole several shirts from Macy's in Aurora. Because defendant was previously convicted of retail theft, the offense was a Class 4 felony. Id. § 16-25(f)(2). Furthermore, because of defendant's history of prior felony convictions, he was eligible for an extended-term sentence of three to six years in the Department

177 N.E.3d 31

448 Ill.Dec. 525

of Corrections. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45(a), 5-5-3.2(b)(1), 5-8-2(a) (West 2016).

¶ 4 Defendant's sentencing hearing was originally set for April 18, 2018, but he failed to appear, and a warrant was issued. He fled the jurisdiction and was arrested in another state. The matter proceeded to sentencing on November 20, 2018. Defendant's presentencing investigation report (PSI) detailed an extensive criminal history that included convictions of trespass to land, trespass to vehicles, attempted aggravated robbery, domestic battery, aggravated battery, resisting a peace officer, possession of cannabis, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and driving on a revoked license. Defendant also had several prior retail theft convictions. The violent offenses—domestic battery, aggravated battery, and attempted aggravated robbery—were committed before 2008. Defendant had served prison sentences for several offenses. In 2015, defendant received a three-year prison term for felony retail theft. He was serving his term of mandatory supervised release when he committed the retail theft in the case before us now.

¶ 5 According to the PSI, defendant reported that both his parents suffered from addiction to drugs and/or alcohol and had spent time in prison. Defendant was raised in foster homes before being placed in the care of an aunt and uncle in Mississippi. Defendant had three children, who were born in 2011, 2013, and 2014. Defendant's youngest child resided with him. Defendant reported that he used marijuana and that he considered his use to be a problem. A letter from defendant's mother stated that defendant was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child. Speaking in allocution, defendant asked for the opportunity to raise his youngest child. In sentencing defendant to a four-year extended term of imprisonment, the trial court noted, inter alia , defendant's extensive criminal history. The trial court also observed that defendant was a poor role model for his child.

¶ 6 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which was denied. He then filed this timely appeal.

¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 8 It is well established that "[a] sentence within the statutory limits for the offense will not be disturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion," which occurs when "the trial court imposes a sentence that is greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law, or is manifestly disproportionate to the crime." People v. Watt , 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 49, 377 Ill.Dec. 258, 1 N.E.3d 1145. "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. Roberts , 338 Ill. App. 3d 245, 251, 273 Ill.Dec. 191, 788 N.E.2d 782 (2003). It has been observed that "[t]he Illinois Constitution mandates the balancing of both retributive and rehabilitative purposes of punishment." People v. Evans , 373 Ill. App. 3d 948, 967, 311 Ill.Dec. 907, 869 N.E.2d 920 (2007). Accordingly, "[t]he trial court is therefore required to consider both the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of restoring the offender to useful citizenship." Id. The court is required to consider all factors in aggravation and mitigation. Id. "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." People v. Jones , 2019 IL App (1st) 170478, ¶ 49, 438 Ill.Dec. 441, 146 N.E.3d 195.

¶ 9 Defendant argues that his sentence was excessive when measured against the...