People v. Klein

2022 IL App (4th) 200599

203 N.E.3d 961

461 Ill.Dec. 359

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

v.Patrick S. KLEIN, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-20-0599

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed April 6, 2022

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Richard Connor Morley, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Gregory M. Minger, State's Attorney, of Eureka (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James C. Majors, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 In June 2020, defendant, Patrick S. Klein, entered an open plea of guilty to residential burglary. 720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2018). In August 2020, the trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison.

¶ 2 Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court's sentence was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. The Charges

¶ 5 In December 2019, the State charged defendant with (1) residential burglary (id. ) and (2) theft (with a prior theft conviction) (id. § 16-1(a)(1)(A)). The State alleged that defendant entered the home of Michael Klein (defendant's brother) with the intent to commit a theft and stole a jar of change worth less than $500. Defendant had previously been convicted of felony theft in 2016.

¶ 6 Defendant was arrested in May 2020. At defendant's arraignment on these charges, the trial court informed him that the court would also be proceeding on two unrelated petitions to revoke his probation filed against him. Those probation sentences stemmed from a 2016 felony conviction for escape and a 2017 conviction for theft. The petitions to revoke alleged that defendant violated his probation by (1) committing the 2019 residential burglary and theft and (2) consuming cannabis and cocaine in December 2019. (We note that neither the petitions to revoke nor their sentences are at issue in this appeal.) The court admonished defendant that (1) he could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison for residential burglary, (2) up to 10 years for each petition to revoke, and (3) the court could order the sentences to run consecutively.

¶ 7 B. The Guilty Plea Hearing

¶ 8 In June 2020, the State agreed to dismiss the 2019 theft charge in exchange for defendant's open plea of guilty to residential burglary. (By an open plea of guilty, we mean that the parties had no agreement regarding what sentence the court would impose.)

¶ 9 As a factual basis for the plea, the State informed the trial court of the following:

"If called to testify, officers from Metamora police department and Michael Klein, who lives [in Woodford County], would show evidence that Michael *** complained that a change jar had gone missing from his residence on or about December 2nd, 2019. Through an investigation and with tips from Michael *** this defendant *** was interviewed by Detective Dave Frank of the Metamora police department. And [defendant] gave a written statement that he went into the residence of his brother Michael Klein without permission and took the change jar and cashed it so he could purchase cocaine."

¶ 10 Also in June 2020, defendant stipulated to the allegations in the petitions to revoke. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and the stipulations and scheduled all three cases for sentencing.

¶ 11 C. The Sentencing Hearing

¶ 12 In August 2020, the trial court conducted defendant's sentencing hearing. The presentence investigation report (PSI) stated that defendant was convicted of felony theft in 2016 and had been sentenced to probation and home confinement. The State twice petitioned to revoke defendant's probation, and in 2017, the court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.

¶ 13 Later in 2016, defendant was convicted of retail theft and escape. In 2017, defendant was convicted of felony theft. The PSI also stated the following:

"The defendant has been placed on Probation eight times. Five terms of Probation were revoked[,] and the defendant was resentenced to Probation. One term of Probation was revoked and the defendant was resentenced to [prison]. The terms of Probation for [the 2016 escape and 2017 theft] are currently in the revocation process."

¶ 14 The PSI also stated that defendant reported having been an alcoholic and drug addict for several years. He suffered from depression and anxiety and had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. However, he had never received treatment for his mental health conditions. Defendant reported a long history of drug treatment, successfully completing services on one occasion and being unsuccessfully discharged for relapsing on several occasions.

¶ 15 1. Evidence in Mitigation

¶ 16 Christopher Johnson testified he had known defendant for a little over a year after first meeting him at a Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meeting. Johnson was shot and wounded while serving in the military in Iraq in 2010. Johnson was medically discharged and spent the next nine years heavily using heroin and other opiates to escape his emotional pain. About three years before defendant's sentencing hearing, Johnson decided to get clean but struggled to maintain sobriety for more than a few weeks before relapsing. Eventually, a doctor suggested Johnson try NA, and when Johnson did so, that was where Johnson met defendant.

¶ 17 Johnson explained he was determined to get clean and decided he would only associate with people at NA who were fully dedicated to the 12-step program, as demonstrated by their success with the program. Johnson "saw these qualities in [defendant]," and they inspired him. Defendant attended NA at least once a day, performed service work once a week, and chaired the "newcomers meeting," where defendant would share his past traumas and difficulties and how the program was helping him. Johnson stated that "some of the more dedicated addicts" would stay after meetings to further discuss recovery. Defendant was always a part of that group, and it was there that defendant taught Johnson about the 12-step program.

¶ 18 Johnson explained that the first 90 days of sobriety were extremely difficult for him. He would have obsessions and overwhelming urges to use, "[a]nd the only support [he] had was [defendant]." When he was struggling, Johnson would call defendant, sometimes in the middle of the night, and defendant would share his experiences and provide "recovery-based solutions." Johnson described that defendant's passion for NA made it easier for Johnson to listen to defendant's advice and put it into practice. Johnson had been clean for a full year and insisted that he would not have made it without defendant. Johnson then described the "battle" that was recovery and the constant need to avoid falling back into old habits and relapse.

¶ 19 Johnson testified that defendant relapsed some months ago and stopped speaking with Johnson. Johnson left defendant messages to tell defendant that Johnson was available to help him with his relapse. Eventually, defendant called, and Johnson helped him get into rehab. Johnson stated that when defendant is clean, "it is not in his character to lie, steal, and hurt people." Johnson had been speaking with defendant since he was in in jail. Johnson emphasized that speaking regularly with a therapist was very important to Johnson's recovery, and he believed that defendant needed the same thing to be successful.

¶ 20 On cross-examination, Johnson explained that when defendant "is in his active addiction" he tries to isolate himself from his family so he does not hurt them. Johnson said the difference between defendant when sober and when using was "night and day." While clean, defendant held a good-paying job at a metal workshop. Johnson believed that defendant had learned a lot from NA but struggled with letting others know how he feels. Johnson remarked that the same thing happened to him, but he relied on his therapist in those moments. Defendant never had anything like a therapist.

¶ 21 2. Defendant's Allocution

¶ 22 In allocution, defendant began by apologizing to his brother and his family. Defendant mentioned that his brother had given defendant a key to his house so defendant could take care of the house and pets when they were gone. Defendant never had a problem while he was sober, but as soon as he relapsed, defendant "betrayed his [brother's] trust" and stole from him. Defendant felt guilty and shameful as soon as the drugs wore off and regretted taking the money. Defendant stated he did not try to hide what he had done and instead came forward to his brother and the police.

¶ 23 Defendant informed the court that he was ready to accept the consequences of his actions and commented that no punishment could hurt him worse than the disappointment from his brother.

¶ 24 Defendant insisted that he was sincere every time he was in the courtroom and was not saying things just so he could "get out as soon as possible and go back to using, because that's never been the case." Defendant stated that he worked very hard on getting sober and was grateful that he was still determined to stop using. Defendant stated he would never stop fighting for his sobriety or helping other addicts do the same. He thanked Johnson and said that if Johnson could do it, defendant had no excuse.

¶ 25 Defendant said pride, complacency, and a lack of discipline were what always "lands me back here." Defendant said he had to look inward to solve the problem and planned to use his time in prison to do just that. Defendant thanked the trial court for giving him prior chances because he was able to meet Johnson and other recovering addicts. Defendant concluded by apologizing for letting everyone down.

¶ 26 3. The Trial Court's Ruling

¶ 27 The trial court mentioned which factors in aggravation and mitigation it considered especially relevant. Regarding mitigation, the court noted defendant's criminal conduct did not cause or threaten serious physical harm...