People v. Melgoza

1

2024 IL App (4th) 230659-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEPHANIE MELGOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-23-0659

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

September 5, 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 Tazewell County No. 22CF195 Honorable Timothy J. Cusak, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE VANCIL delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Steigmann and Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

VANCIL, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: One of defendant's two convictions for aggravated driving under the influence and one of her two convictions for aggravated reckless driving violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine, but the appellate court cannot review whether the trial court considered illegal victim impact statements, and the trial court did not otherwise abuse its discretion or consider improper sentencing factors when it sentenced defendant to 14 years' incarceration.

¶ 2 Defendant, Stephanie Melgoza, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(F) (West 2022)) and two counts of aggravated reckless driving (id. § 11-503(a)(1), (c)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years' incarceration on each of the two aggravated DUI counts and 3 years' incarceration on each of the two aggravated reckless driving counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appeals, arguing that her second conviction for aggravated DUI and her second conviction for aggravated reckless driving both violate the one-act one-crime doctrine and that the court based her 14-year sentence on improper considerations. She asks us to vacate one of her convictions and sentences for aggravated DUI and one of her convictions for aggravated reckless driving. She further asks us to either reduce her remaining 14-year sentence or remand for a new sentencing hearing.

¶ 3 We vacate defendant's sentences and convictions for one count of aggravated DUI and one count of aggravated reckless driving, but we affirm her sentence on the remaining aggravated DUI conviction.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In April 2022, the State indicted defendant. The indictment alleged that on April 10, 2022, defendant drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, causing a crash that resulted in the deaths of Andrea Rosewicz and Paul Prowant. Counts I and II each alleged aggravated DUI. Counts III and IV each alleged aggravated reckless driving. Defendant pled guilty to both counts of aggravated DUI and both counts of aggravated reckless driving.

¶ 6 In providing the factual basis for its charges, the State indicated that East Peoria Police Officer Jeffery Bieber could testify that one evening in April 2022, he was dispatched to a traffic accident. When he arrived at the scene, he saw a red Dodge Dart with front end damage and two pedestrians lying near the road. Those two pedestrians were later pronounced dead. Officer Bieber spoke to defendant, who was the driver of the Dodge, and she told him that she had driven the vehicle at about 40 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone and that she struck someone. Officer Bieber would further testify that he observed defendant was slurring her speech and had red watery eyes and her breath smelled like alcohol. The officer arrested her for DUI. Defendant stipulated to this factual basis. The trial court accepted defendant's guilty plea and entered judgment on the two counts of aggravated DUI and two counts of aggravated reckless driving.

¶ 7 The Tazewell County Adult Probation Department submitted a presentence investigation report (PSI) to the court. The report noted that defendant was 24 years old. Defendant had an associate's degree and completed her Bachelor of Science while the case was pending. Other than two petty driving offenses, defendant had no prior criminal history. She had complied with the terms of her bond, including wearing an alcohol monitor and taking random drug tests. No alcohol or drug consumption was recorded. The report also stated that at the time of sentencing, defendant was pregnant.

¶ 8 At the start of the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that the sentencing range for aggravated DUI resulting in two deaths was 6 to 28 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) and the sentencing range for aggravated reckless driving was 1 to 3 years. The court stated that it had reviewed the PSI, as well as recordings from the night of the crash. Some of those recordings showed defendant laughing and singing after her arrest. The court also noted that it had received 2 letters from relatives of the victims and 18 letters on defendant's behalf. At the hearing, Officer Bieber testified consistent with the State's earlier report.

¶ 9 The trial court then heard testimony from three relatives of Andrea Rosewicz and Paul Prowant, the victims. Andrea Rosewicz's cousin said defendant alone was responsible for taking Andrea from the family. She described "waves of grief' that made her feel physically ill. She said she trusted the trial court judge to make the right sentencing decision, adding, "I respectfully request no leniency."

¶ 10 Rosewicz's sister read a prepared statement from the victim's aunt and uncle. That statement lamented the loss of Andrea's life. The statement said to defendant "Whatever punishment you are given will never change the outcome of that horrible night or bring back the lives that were lost." Then the victim's sister addressed defendant in her own words. She told defendant, "There are no words that could even remotely come close to inflicting pain and suffering on you anywhere near as much as you have inflicted on me, our families, and Andrea's friends, the magnitude of which is unimaginable." Addressing the judge, she said, "An eternity in prison is not enough time. Yet, I do implore you to issue the maximum sentence permitted by law to keep this monster from doing any more harm to any other innocent victims."

¶ 11 Finally, a relative of Paul Prowant provided a statement. She said that the deaths of Andrea and Paul continued to haunt their families. She told the judge:

"We, family, and friends alike ask that the Court please punish [defendant] to the fullest extent of the law and sentence her to the maximum allowed by the Court. She made the choice to drink and drive from one bar to another, it was her decision, and she should be held accountable. *** All we ask of you, [Y]our Honor, is that justice be served and you hold [defendant] accountable for every drunken decision she's ever made especially this last one that ended the beloved lives of Paul Richard Prowant and Andrea Lynn Rosewicz."

¶ 12 After the close of evidence, the State asked the court to impose a sentence of not less than 20 years in the DOC. Defense counsel argued in mitigation that defendant did not intentionally cause any harm, she could not have predicted these deaths, and alcohol had impaired her judgment. Defense counsel commented on how extensive media coverage of the crash and the response from defendant's university community had "vilified" her. She was "despondent," "remorseful, repentant," and "unable to sleep." She had complied with the conditions of her pretrial release, and she had strong support from her family. Defendant was fully insured, so the victims' families had received compensation. Defense counsel offered his personal observations and beliefs that defendant had demonstrated the appropriate character and attitude. Defendant had taken responsibility and had called 911 at the time of the crash. She cooperated with the pretrial detention conditions and would likely comply with probation terms. Finally, defendant wanted to share her experience with others to discourage them from drinking and driving. Defense counsel further argued that the court should not consider deterrence as an aggravating factor because the media coverage would already act as a deterrent. Defendant then spoke in allocution. She apologized to the victims' families and her own. She said she intends to never drink again, and she wants to warn others about the dangers of drinking and driving.

¶ 13 The trial court began its findings by noting that it had considered the PSI, the letters on defendant's behalf, the victim impact statements, the evidence presented, counsel's argument, the factors in aggravation and mitigation, defendant's history and character, and the seriousness of the offense. The court found the following mitigating factors: defendant called 911 and cooperated with the police; she accepted responsibility and pled guilty; she did not expect her behavior would harm anyone; she compensated the victims' families; she had no notable criminal history; her character and attitude indicated her criminal conduct was unlikely to recur; and she had complied with all the terms imposed by pretrial services. After reviewing all the factors in mitigation, the court declined to sentence defendant to probation, finding it would "deprecate the seriousness of this offense."

¶ 14 The court found that the only aggravating factor was that "the sentence is necessary to deter others from committing the same crime." The court explained as follows:

"[T]hat's the hard one because what does deter others from committing the same crime? It's unknown. The family wants maximum, 28 years. Sure, the victims family or the defendant's family wants probation. And what sentence can be entered at this point in time that would actually deter anybody else from going out and driving while drunk?

[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)] came out with a form after a study in 2020 that

...