People v. McClendon

1

2024 IL App (5th) 220395-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leondre McClendon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 5-22-0395

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fifth District

September 12, 2024

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 St. Clair County. No. 16-CF-924 Honorable Robert B. Haida, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and McHaney concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

CATES JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not err in sentencing the defendant to an aggregate 65-year sentence with an opportunity for parole after the defendant serves 20 years. The defendant's sentence does not violate the Illinois proportionate penalties clause. The defendant has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶ 2 The defendant, Leondre McClendon, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(1) (West 2016)), one count of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(1) (West 2016)), one count of aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1(b)(1) (West 2016)), one count of aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103.2(a)(7)(A) (West 2016)), and one count of vehicular hijacking (720 ILCS 5/18-3(a) (West 2016)). The circuit court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of 80 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The defendant filed a direct appeal claiming that he was denied a fair trial and that under Graham v Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and People v Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, his 80-year de facto life sentence violated the eighth amendment. See People v. McClendon, 2021 IL App (5th) 190007-U. We affirmed the defendant's convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded this matter for a new sentencing hearing. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 65 years in the IDOC.

¶ 3 On appeal, the defendant claims that his 65-year de facto life sentence violates Graham, 560 U.S. 48, because he was a juvenile when the offenses occurred, and he was not provided with a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. The defendant also challenges the validity of section 5-4.5-115 of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-115 (West 2022)), the "under-21 parole law." The defendant claims that his 65-year sentence violates Illinois's proportionate penalties clause, and his sentence was excessive considering the defendant's age, cognitive problems and lack of treatment, and rehabilitative potential. The defendant additionally claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 We previously recited the details of the defendant's conviction and original sentence in McClendon, 2021 IL App (5th) 190007-U. We, therefore, only discuss those facts and the procedural history that are relevant for this appeal.

¶ 6 In the evening of May 5, 2016, the 16-year-old defendant, his 14-year-old brother, and his 16-year-old cousin were walking in a residential area. The group decided to steal a car that had passed by and the three followed the driver, G.A., to her garage. According to G.A., the defendant held a "gun" to G.A.'s head and said, "Shut up or I'll shoot." He also put his hands down the back of her pants while he told the other two boys to get into and start the car. The defendant's cousin testified at trial that the defendant had actually held a cell phone to G.A.'s head as though it was a gun. After the defendant's cousin and brother left with G.A.'s car, the defendant sexually assaulted G.A. in her garage.

¶ 7 The defendant testified at trial and admitted to committing the crimes of vehicular hijacking, aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and aggravated robbery. The defendant additionally testified that he had sex with G.A. and received oral sex. At the time of the incident, the defendant believed that G.A. had consented to the sex acts, and he denied threatening G.A. or holding his cell phone to her head, as if it were a gun.

¶ 8 The jury found the defendant guilty of vehicular hijacking, aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle, aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault regarding the allegations of vaginal penetration and anal contact, and criminal sexual assault for the allegation of oral penetration.

¶ 9 Sentencing Hearing

¶ 10 The circuit court held a sentencing hearing on October 4, 2018. Tara Arthur-Bergman, a juvenile probation officer, testified on behalf of the State that the defendant was first placed on probation on October 9, 2015. The defendant's parents had either divorced or separated, and they both lived in Belleville, Illinois. The defendant's brother was on probation. Since the third grade, the defendant had received accommodations for a behavioral disability. Tara recommended that the defendant receive education services and referred the defendant for out-patient counseling services through Chestnut Health Systems. The defendant's mother was against counseling services and failed to enroll the defendant in the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Program.

¶ 11 Tara additionally testified that while the defendant was detained on a burglary offense in Madison County, he hit another detainee with a lunch tray. The defendant was released on April 6, 2016, and placed on electronic leg monitoring. Tara received notifications that the defendant had violated the monitoring program several times.

¶ 12 Rodney Wilson, a corrections officer at the St. Clair County jail, testified that he investigated incidents within the jail including an incident involving the defendant that occurred on August 11, 2018. Rodney reviewed the footage from the video surveillance of the defendant hitting a 59-year-old inmate from behind. The inmate went to the floor and curled into a fetal position while the defendant kicked him repeatedly. The defendant walked away, returned after a few minutes, and resumed kicking, and hitting, and stomping the inmate on the floor. At one point, the inmate had attempted to hide under a bunk bed and the defendant jabbed him with a broom.

¶ 13 The older inmate was hospitalized and suffered from four fractured vertebrae. The older inmate informed Rodney that the incident occurred because he wanted to make a trade with the defendant and had changed his mind. The defendant refused to be interviewed about the incident.

¶ 14 After Rodney's testimony concluded, G.A. presented a victim impact statement. The defense did not present testimony in mitigation. The defense submitted three psychological reports from Dr. Cuneo dated March 5, 2017, March 28, 2017, and April 2, 2018, and noted that the defendant's juvenile files contained an additional evaluation completed on September 10, 2015, by Cheryl Prost, M.S., a court psychologist who worked at the juvenile detention center. The initial report completed by Dr. Cuneo indicated that the defendant was functioning in the mild mentally retarded range of intelligence and had an IQ of 68. The defendant had the cognitive abilities of an 11-year-old, which "may have negatively impacted his inability to stay on task and impulsivity." Dr. Cuneo opined that the defendant was sane. The defendant knew that stealing a car and threatening a woman to have sex were wrong, and the defendant could have controlled his behavior. In the subsequent reports, Dr. Cuneo determined that the defendant was fit to stand trial. Dr. Cuneo additionally considered an intellectual assessment by Cheryl Prost, M.S., where the defendant had scored a verbal IQ of 74, visual IQ of 71, and composite IQ of 73. Dr. Cuneo found that the defendant's IQ score of 68 was consistent with his prior intellectual assessment.

¶ 15 The State requested a sentence of 25 years for each count of aggravated criminal sexual assault, served consecutively, 10 years for criminal sexual assault, and 15 years for each count for robbery, hijacking, and aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle, to run concurrently with one another, but consecutively to the criminal sexual assault charges. A mandatory supervised release (MSR) of three years to natural life was also requested. The defendant would be 74 years old upon his eligibility for release and he would not necessarily receive a life sentence.

¶ 16 The State further argued factors in aggravation including that the defendant's conduct caused or threatened serious bodily and emotional harm, the defendant had a prior history of delinquency, and the requested sentence was necessary to deter others from committing the same crime. The State addressed that G.A. had testified to emotional and physical harm sustained because of the attack. Additionally, the defendant was serving juvenile probation at the time of the offense and had a pattern of committing robberies. The defendant violated probation by leaving home without permission while on the electronic monitor. While in custody, the defendant struck a detainee with a lunch tray, created "shank-type" objects, and seriously injured an inmate's back.

¶ 17 The State additionally argued that some court decisions prohibit de facto life sentences without parole for juveniles. However, the defendant could receive a long sentence after giving due consideration that the crimes were committed by a juvenile. The circuit court was required to consider additional factors in mitigation because the defendant was under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. The defendant also...