Opinion
5-23-0417
06-28-2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRYON L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
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 Williamson County. No. 15-TR-5299 Honorable Stephen R. Green, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Moore concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
BARBERIS JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: We affirm defendant's sentence following a probation violation where he has completed the sentence, making the issue moot. In any event, the court did not punish defendant for his conduct while on probation and in light of defendant's criminal history, the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. As any argument to the contrary would lack merit, we grant defendant's appointed counsel on appeal leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 2 Defendant, Bryon L. Williams, appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion to reconsider the sentence. His appointed appellate counsel, the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD), has concluded that there is no reasonably meritorious argument that the court erred in doing so. Accordingly, it has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel along with a supporting memorandum. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). OSAD has notified defendant of its motion, and this court has provided him with ample opportunity to respond, but he has not done so. After considering the record on appeal and OSAD's motion and supporting brief, we agree that this appeal presents no reasonably meritorious issues. Thus, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In 2017, defendant was convicted of driving while license revoked (DWLR). He was sentenced to 24 months' probation with conditions including the payment of fines and fees and completion of 300 hours of community service.
¶ 5 The State moved to revoke his probation, alleging that defendant had not reported to probation. Defendant posted bond but failed to appear for the bond return hearing and the subsequent bond forfeiture hearing. On November 12, 2019, he pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial. However, he failed to appear for a status hearing and a warrant was issued. He posted bond, but again failed to appear for the bond return hearing and bond forfeiture hearing. On October 25, 2022, defendant admitted to the allegations of the petition to revoke.
¶ 6 At sentencing on June 1, 2023, probation officer Christy Richardson testified that defendant had not completed any of his required 300 hours of community service, nor had he paid any of the fines and fees. He had reported to probation twice, and his probation officer conducted a home visit in January of 2018. The officer did not see him again after that.
¶ 7 Defendant testified that two of his children currently lived with him, and he paid a total of $465 a month in child support for five children. He explained that he missed court appearances in 2022 because his mother, father, and grandson passed away over the course of six months. His relatives were hospitalized in different counties before passing, which required him to do a lot of traveling.
¶ 8 Defendant claimed that he had completed 50 hours of community service, consisting of "moving pallets somewhere in Murphysboro" and helping clean up at a barber shop. He requested that his probation be reinstated, or that he be put on home confinement.
¶ 9 In requesting a jail sentence, the State cited defendant's numerous DWLR convictions, several felony convictions, two outstanding warrants for DWLR, and his failure to appear in court, report to probation, and complete community service hours. The defense argued that incarcerating defendant did not benefit the public and only harmed his children.
¶ 10 Before imposing defendant's sentence, the court underscored that defendant continuously failed to comply with the terms of his probation, concluding, "you didn't comply with anything." The court did not find defendant's testimony credible. In mitigation, the court found that there were family members who would be impacted by his incarceration, and defendant's conduct did not harm anyone. In rejecting a new probation sentence, the court rhetorically asked, "Why should I believe that he is going to do anything when he didn't the first time?" The court instead sentenced defendant to 364 days in county jail. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only his sentence.
¶ 11 ANALYSIS
¶ 12 OSAD concludes that there is no reasonably meritorious argument that the circuit court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to jail rather than probation. OSAD first notes that defendant has completed his jail sentence, and thus any challenge to that sentence is moot. Counsel further concludes that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion given defendant's lengthy record and almost complete failure to comply with probation.
¶ 13 We agree that the issue is moot. The completion of a defendant's sentence renders a challenge to the sentence moot. In re Christopher K., 217 Ill.2d 348, 359 (2005). An issue is moot where intervening circumstances have made it impossible for this court to grant effectual relief. People v. Jackson, 199 Ill.2d 286, 294 (2002). Because defendant has been released from jail, a finding that the sentence was improper would not provide him with any practical relief.
¶ 14 In any event, we agree that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. After revoking a sentence of probation, the trial judge may resentence a defendant to any sentence that would have been appropriate for the original offense. People v. Risley, 359 Ill.App.3d 918, 920 (2005). The court may consider the defendant's conduct while on probation in reassessing his rehabilitative potential. Id. However, the sentence imposed must not be punishment for the probation violation. Id. A sentence within the statutory range for the offense will not be disturbed as an abuse of the sentencing court's discretion unless this court is strongly persuaded that the sentencing judge intended to penalize the defendant for violating his probation. Id. at 920-21.
¶ 15 Here, while the court in imposing sentence clearly referred to defendant's conduct while on probation, the context of those remarks makes it clear that the court was explaining why it did not consider another sentence of probation, rather than punishing defendant for that conduct.
¶ 16 The imposition of a sentence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be altered upon review absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Etherton, 2017 IL App (5th) 140427, ¶ 15 (citing People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill.2d 149, 154 (1977)). The trial court's imposition of a sentence is given great deference because the trial court is in the best position to consider the defendant's credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age. Id. Given defendant's record of felony convictions and numerous DWLR convictions that the court recounted, the jail sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
¶ 18 As this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 19 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.