People v. Jones-Beard

2019 IL App (1st) 162005

139 N.E.3d 1027

435 Ill.Dec. 647

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Danarius JONES-BEARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-16-2005

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

Opinion filed January 29, 2019

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Gilbert C. Lenz, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg and Margaret M. Smith, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion ¶ 1 Danarius Jones-Beard opted for a bench trial at which he was convicted of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery and sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years' imprisonment. On appeal, Jones-Beard contends that his sentence is excessive. He also contends that his fines, fees, and costs order should be corrected. We affirm and modify the fines, fees, and costs order.

¶ 2 To prevail, Jones-Beard must affirmatively show the sentencing court failed to consider the relevant factors, but the record reflects that the trial court considered appropriate factors in aggravation and mitigation during the sentencing hearing. Also, the record and case law does not support the argument that the trial court penalized Jones-Beard for choosing to exercise his right to stand trial. So we affirm.

¶ 3 Background

¶ 4 Jones-Beard was charged by information with aggravated vehicular hijacking ( 720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(3) (West 2014) ) and two counts of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm (id. § 18-2(a)(1) ). Before trial, defense counsel requested an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 conference. Ill. S. Ct. R. 402 (eff. July 1, 2012). At the conference, the trial court offered to sentence Jones-Beard to seven years' imprisonment in exchange for a guilty plea, but he rejected the offer. Jones-Beard waived his right to a jury; the case proceeded to a bench trial.

¶ 5 On December 10, 2014, Hang Li walked to his car with his roommate, Lu Wang. Li's car—a 1998 green Honda Accord—was parked on 30th Street, near the State Street intersection. When Li arrived at the driver's side door, he noticed a person, whom he identified in court as Jones-Beard, walking toward him from the opposite side of the street. As Jones-Beard approached, Li saw that he was holding a gun. Li quickly entered the car hoping to flee, but Wang was still standing outside. Li determined that he did not have time to flee so got out of the car. Jones-Beard pointed the gun at Li's stomach and demanded money. Li handed over $3 and Wang $5. Jones-Beard then demanded the car; Li gave him the key and Jones-Beard drove away. Li and Wang waited to make sure that Jones-Beard would not return before calling 9-1-1.

¶ 6 Later that day, Chicago police officer Thomas Murphy, while on patrol with Officer Brian Costanzo, saw Jones-Beard driving the green Honda without wearing a seatbelt. Murphy maneuvered behind and activated the emergency lights. Jones-Beard pulled into a parking lot. Murphy asked Jones-Beard for his driver's license and proof of insurance, which he could not produce. Murphy asked Jones-Beard to get out, and as he did, Murphy saw a black handgun on the driver's seat. Costanzo took Jones-Beard into custody, and Murphy secured the firearm. On inspection, Murphy discovered the weapon was a "BB gun." Murphy described the BB gun as "heavy" and noted its similar size and weight to his service weapon. Costanzo searched the car and recovered $8 in the center console.

¶ 7 That evening, Li and Wang went to the 15th District police station. There, Detective Chris Blum spoke with them and asked that they view a physical lineup. After viewing the lineup, Li identified Jones-Beard. Li also identified the car and the currency he had given to Jones-Beard. Wang did not make any identification.

¶ 8 Blum interviewed Jones-Beard. Blum read him his Miranda rights, and Jones-Beard agreed to speak. Jones-Beard told Blum that he woke up that morning "cold and hungry" and "set out to rob someone." Holding a BB gun in his right hand, he approached two Chinese males and demanded their money and car key. The two men agreed, and gave Jones-Beard $8 and the key.

¶ 9 That evening, Assistant State's Attorney Brian Whang spoke to Jones-Beard. After their conversation, Jones-Beard agreed to memorialize his oral statement in writing. According to Jones-Beard's statement, he saw Li and Wang standing next to a green Honda sedan at the corner of 30th Street and State Street, at which time he resolved to steal the car. In the front right part of his jacket, Jones-Beard had a heavy black metal BB gun. Jones-Beard liked that it "looks like a real gun." He held the gun in his hand, partially covering it with the sleeve of his jacket. He approached Li and Wang and pointed the gun at Li. He demanded that they place their money on top of the car. He then demanded the car key. When they complied, he told them to walk away. He then drove off. Jones-Beard did not buckle his seatbelt and eventually the police pulled him over. He was sitting on the BB gun and when he got out of the car, the officers saw the gun. The money he took from Li and Wang was in the car's center console.

¶ 10 At the close of the State's case, the court asked to handle the BB gun. After it had done so, the State rested.

¶ 11 The court found Jones-Beard guilty of all counts. In announcing its decision, the court noted that the BB gun "looks just like a gun." The court also noted that it was "heavy" and "could really, really hurt somebody as a bludgeon."

¶ 12 At sentencing, the court heard arguments in aggravation and mitigation. In aggravation, the State emphasized Jones-Beard's criminal history. As a juvenile, Jones-Beard was convicted of criminal damage to property and sentenced to probation. While on probation, he was convicted of burglary and incarcerated. His incarceration was later vacated, and he was sentenced to probation. Jones-Beard violated his probation three additional times. As an adult, Jones-Beard was convicted of attempted criminal sexual assault and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. At the time Jones-Beard committed the offenses in this case, he was on parole, having been released from prison just two months before. The State also highlighted that the presentence investigation (PSI) report reflected that Jones-Beard admitted to being a current gang member. The State acknowledged that Jones-Beard "didn't have the best childhood," but argued that he had been "given opportunity after opportunity" to rehabilitate, of which he did not avail himself. The State asked the court to sentence Jones-Beard to 15 years' imprisonment.

¶ 13 In mitigation, defense counsel argued that Jones-Beard should receive the minimum allowable sentence. Jones-Beard hurt no one, and at the time of the offenses was 21 years old. Jones-Beard had a troubled childhood, with no contact with his father and a drug-addicted mother. His grandfather raised him until, at age 16, the Department of Children and Family Services removed him for unknown reasons. Ultimately, counsel argued that Jones-Beard had "been a product of the system" and a sentence greater than the minimum would not be rehabilitative.

¶ 14 In allocution, Jones-Beard apologized. He stated that he was "taking full responsibility" for his actions and not using his troubled past as an excuse.

¶ 15 In announcing its sentencing decision, the trial court noted that it considered every aspect of Jones-Beard's PSI, including his age and difficult childhood. Acknowledging Jones-Beard's time spent in DCFS care, the court noted the unexplained basis for his removal from his grandfather's care. The court said it also considered Jones-Beard's "extensive criminal history," including his adjudications as a juvenile and convictions as an adult. The court merged count III (armed robbery) into count II (armed robbery), and imposed concurrent terms of 15 years' imprisonment.

¶ 16 Jones-Beard filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, arguing its excessiveness, given the nature of the crime, and that his criminal history consisted largely of his juvenile adjudications. The court denied Jones-Beard's motion.

¶ 17 Analysis

¶ 18 Jones-Beard first contends that his concurrent 15-year sentences are excessive, given the nonviolent nature of his offenses and the presence of several mitigating factors, including his troubled childhood and his age. He also contends that the trial court assessed a "trial tax" by sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years' imprisonment after having initially offered him a seven-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. He asks that we either reduce his sentence or remand for resentencing.

¶ 19 Concurrent 15-Year Sentences

¶ 20 The Illinois Constitution requires that a trial court impose a sentence that reflects both the seriousness of the offense and the objective of restoring the defendant to useful citizenship. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11 ; People v. McWilliams , 2015 IL App (1st) 130913, ¶ 27, 389 Ill.Dec. 398, 26 N.E.3d 488. In reaching this balance, a trial court must consider a number of aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant's credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age. People v. Alexander , 239 Ill. 2d 205, 213, 346 Ill.Dec. 458, 940 N.E.2d 1062 (2010).

¶ 21 In reviewing a defendant's sentence, this court will not reweigh the factors and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court merely because it would have weighed the factors differently. People v. Busse , 2016 IL App (1st) 142941, ¶ 20, 410 Ill.Dec. 200, 69 N.E.3d 425. The trial court has wide latitude to weigh the appropriate factors, which entitles it to deference. Alexander , 239 Ill. 2d at 212, 346 Ill.Dec. 458, 940 N.E.2d 1062. An abuse of discretion exists where the sentence imposed is at great variance with the spirit and purpose of the...