People v. Walker

1

2023 IL App (4th) 220737-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GAGE K. WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-22-0737

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

August 7, 2023

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 McDonough County No. 21CF147 Honorable William E. Poncin, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cavanagh and Lannerd concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

KNECHT, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to school disciplinary records contained in the presentence investigation report.

¶ 2 In November 2021, defendant, Gage K. Walker, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1) (West 2020)). In January 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to three and a half years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to unreliable school disciplinary records contained in the presentence investigation report (PSI). We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In August 2021, defendant was charged by information with two counts of aggravated battery after he struck Terrell McGuire, which caused McGuire to fall to the ground and suffer from" 'brain bleeds' and other serious brain injuries." Count I alleged aggravated battery for knowingly causing great bodily harm to McGuire (id.) and count II alleged similarly but was predicated on the incident occurring on a public way-a Hy-Vee parking lot (id. § 12-3.05(c)).

¶ 5 On November 5, 2021, defendant entered an open guilty plea to count I. A completed PSI was filed on January 20, 2022.

¶ 6 On January 31, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. The PSI was modified to show defendant was 19 years old at the time of sentencing. The PSI was then admitted without any objections or further corrections by the parties.

¶ 7 Harley Hale, defendant's girlfriend, testified defendant was unemployed. Hale was present during the incident and defendant told her McGuire was yelling at and threatening him. Hale stated defendant "thought he saw [McGuire's] hands come up so he panicked and punched him." Hale testified defendant felt remorse for hitting McGuire. On cross-examination, Hale stated defendant did not check on McGuire's condition after striking him and told Hale to drive him home.

¶ 8 Defendant offered into evidence two security videos from the Hy-Vee parking lot showing the incident, which were admitted without objection. Defendant apologized for his actions and the injuries to McGuire.

¶ 9 The State presented victim impact statements from McGuire's mother and fiancee. Attached to one of the victim impact statements was a photo of McGuire in a hospital bed after the incident, which was admitted without objection.

¶ 10 The State referenced material contained in the PSI during its argument. The State mentioned a charged but later dismissed juvenile offense where defendant allegedly strangled his sister and pushed her when she was pregnant. The State also noted multiple incidents from various school disciplinary reports. In 2014, a Rushville-Industry school discipline report alleged defendant put his hands around a student's neck and choked another student. Defendant was suspended from the Modular School in Macomb, which was described as a school for students with "emotional and behavioral disorders." Defendant was suspended for allegedly getting into a "physical altercation with another student and being verbally aggressive with staff." Defendant received multiple suspensions for hitting other students. The State sought the maximum five-year sentence.

¶ 11 Defendant argued the trial court should disregard the various allegations in the PSI related to incidents with his sister or at his previous schools because they were unproven. Defendant sought probation.

¶ 12 The trial court found defendant's conduct caused or threatened serious harm, he had a history of delinquency, and deterrence was necessary. The court did not find the statutory factors in mitigation applicable. The court considered defendant's violent behavior at school as "nonstatutory factors in aggravation." The court commented on defendant's "sporadic employment history" and failure to take initiative toward completing his general education development test. The court referenced defendant's statement in the PSI he has an "impulse control problem" and his failure to take initiative to address his attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The court sentenced defendant to three and a half years' imprisonment.

¶ 13 Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to reconsider and reduce his sentence. During the March 21, 2022, hearing on defendant's motion, defendant testified he was interested in the impact incarceration program. In denying defendant's motion, the trial court noted, while defendant did not have "much of a criminal history, [he] did have a history of violence which was fairly well documented in the [PSI]." The court referenced defendant's lack of initiative during the three-month period between when he pleaded guilty and the sentencing hearing regarding his rehabilitative potential.

¶ 14 Defendant appealed. On June 28, 2022, defendant's appeal was summarily remanded by agreement of the parties for failure to file a 604(d) certificate. See People v. Walker, No. 4-22-0252 (June 28, 2022) (unpublished order).

¶ 15 On July 29, 2022, defendant filed an amended motion to reconsider and reduce his sentence, which attached a Rule 604(d) certificate (see Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017)). During the August 19, 2022, hearing on the amended motion, neither party presented any evidence or argument. The trial court stated it reviewed the amended motion and transcript from the original hearing before denying defendant's motion.

¶ 16 This appeal followed.

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court improperly relied on defendant's school disciplinary record in the PSI without sufficient evidence to ensure its reliability. Specifically, defendant contends the State failed to present any witnesses to support the veracity of defendant's school disciplinary record.

¶ 19 Defendant concedes review of this issue has been forfeited. The record on appeal shows (1) the PSI was made available to defendant more than a week prior to sentencing (2) defendant reviewed the PSI with his trial counsel, and (3) other than offering a correction regarding defendant's age, defendant's counsel did not object to the PSI. However, defendant urges this court to address the issue under the ineffective assistance of counsel framework. According to defendant, his trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to object to the school disciplinary record in the PSI caused his claim of error to be forfeited on appeal.

¶ 20 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is analyzed under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). People v. Merriweather, 2022 IL App (4th) 210498, ¶ 40. The test established in Strickland also applies to the sentencing hearing. People v. Franklin, 167 Ill.2d 1, 25, 656 N.E.2d 750, 760-61 (1995). Proving ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing requires a defendant show (1) counsel's performance fell below minimal professional standards and (2) a reasonable probability exists the defendant's sentence was affected by counsel's deficient performance. People v. Hibbler, 2019 IL App (4th) 160897, ¶ 88, 129 N.E.3d 755. Failure to satisfy either prong negates a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. A reviewing court "may dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by proceeding directly to the prejudice prong without addressing counsel's performance." People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 17, 996 N.E.2d 607. To establish prejudice, a defendant must show "a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different." People v. Stevens, 2018 IL App (4th) 150871, ¶ 24, 112 N.E.3d 609.

¶ 21 "Whether the trial court relied upon an improper factor at sentencing is a question of law reviewed de novo." People v. Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th) 170035, ¶ 103, 126 N.E.3d 703. The trial court is afforded a strong presumption its sentencing determination was based on proper legal reasoning. Id. The defendant bears the burden to affirmatively establish the sentence imposed was based on an improper factor. Id. A sentence will not be reversed unless it is evident the trial court relied upon an improper factor. Id.

¶ 22 At the aggravation/mitigation stage of sentencing, the ordinary rules of evidence are relaxed, requiring evidence need only be relevant and reliable for admissibility. People v. Terrell, 185 Ill.2d 467, 505, 708 N.E.2d 309, 328 (1998). Information in the PSI "must necessarily consist in part of hearsay and other normally inadmissible evidence." People v. Blanck, 263 Ill.App.3d 224, 234, 635 N.E.2d 1356, 1365 (1994). "Proof of prior misconduct not resulting in prosecution or conviction is admissible as relevant to the question of defendant's character." People v. Johnson, 114 Ill.2d 170, 205, 499 N.E.2d 1355, 1371 (1986). The trial court is given broad discretion at sentencing to consider various sources and types of information. People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759, ¶ 17, 99 N.E.3d 590. "At the sentencing hearing, evidence is admissible if it is relevant and reliable." Id.

¶ 23 Here, defendant's school disciplinary record is relevant as it demonstrated defendant's troubled history with structure and...