People v. Jackson

117 Citing cases

  1. People v. Sinico

    2015 Ill. App. 132164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Section 111-3(c-5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 requires that "if an alleged fact *** is not an element of an offense but is sought to be used to increase the range of penalties for the offense beyond the statutory maximum that could otherwise be imposed for the offense, the alleged fact must be included in the charging instrument or otherwise provided to the defendant through a 20 written notification before trial." 725 ILCS 5/111-3(c-5) (West 2008); see People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 60. If the charging instrument includes the alleged fact that is the basis for the enhanced sentence, then no additional notification is required to be given to a defendant.

  2. People v. Alequin

    2018 Ill. App. 161229 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    People v. Harmon, 2015 IL App (1st) 122345, ¶ 123. We presume the trial court considers "all relevant factors and any mitigation evidence presented" (People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 48), but "has no obligation to recite and assign value to each factor" (People v. Perkins, 408 Ill. App. 3d 752, 763 (2011)). Rather, a defendant "must make an affirmative showing the sentencing court did not consider the relevant factors" where it is essentially argued that the trial court failed to take factors into consideration.

  3. People v. Morrar

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 140733 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    However, "the seriousness of an offense is considered the most important factor in determining a sentence." People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 53, 23 N.E.3d 430. ¶ 14 With excessive-sentence claims, this court has explained appellate review of a defendant's sentence as follows:

  4. People v. Jenk

    2016 Ill. App. 143177 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming defendant's conviction where trial court's "benign comment" regarding fact not in evidence "did not form the basis of the court's finding" of witness credibility or guilt

    See Chapman, 2012 IL 111896, ¶ 19, 358 Ill.Dec. 640, 965 N.E.2d 1119. An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 39, 387 Ill.Dec. 738, 23 N.E.3d 430.¶ 36 The defendant argues that a new trial is warranted, by claiming that the trial court “prejudicially erred” in admitting evidence of his three prior incidents of domestic violence against A.C.R., where the admission of such propensity evidence replaced the necessary proof required to convict him of the charged offense in the instant case.

  5. People v. Thomason

    2015 Ill. App. 4th 130875 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    However, "the seriousness of an offense is considered the most important factor in determining a sentence." People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 53, 23 N.E.3d 430. ¶ 29 With excessive-sentence claims, this court has explained appellate review of a defendant's sentence as follows:

  6. People v. Clemons

    2021 Ill. App. 200507 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    ¶ 15 A sentence within statutorily-mandated guidelines is presumptively proper, and will not be overturned or reduced unless it is affirmatively shown to greatly depart from the spirit or purpose of the law, or is manifestly contrary to constitutional guidelines. People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 50. We will not substitute our judgment for the sentencing court's merely because we would have balanced the sentencing factors differently (People v. Alexander, 239 Ill.2d 205, 213 (2010)), and absent evidence to the contrary, we presume the sentencing court considered the mitigating factors before it (People v. Flores, 404 Ill.App.3d 155, 158 (2010)).

  7. People v. Thomason

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 130875 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    However, "the seriousness of an offense is considered the most important factor in determining a sentence." People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 53, 23 N.E.3d 430. ¶ 32 With excessive-sentence claims, this court has explained appellate review of a defendant's sentence as follows:

  8. People v. Stevenson

    2016 Ill. App. 143251 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is " 'arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.' " People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 39 (quoting People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 133 (2007)). When applying this deferential standard, we must uphold the trial court's decision even if "reasonable minds [can] differ" about whether such evidence is admissible. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 375-76.

  9. People v. Wilder

    2015 Ill. App. 132530 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    The trial court is presumed to consider all relevant factors and any mitigation evidence presented but is not obligated to recite or assign a value to each factor. People v. Meeks, 81 Ill. 2d 524, 534 (1980); People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 48. To rebut this presumption, a defendant must make an affirmative showing that the sentencing court did not consider the relevant factors.

  10. People v. Day

    2015 Ill. App. 133402 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    The trial court is presumed to consider all relevant factors and any mitigation evidence presented but is not obligated to recite or assign a value to each factor. People v. Meeks, 81 Ill. 2d 524, 534 (1980); People v. Jackson, 2014 IL App (1st) 123258, ¶ 48. To rebut this presumption, a defendant must make an affirmative showing that the trial court did not consider the relevant factors.