People v. Webb

NOTICE 2022 IL App (4th) 210726-U FILED
This Order was filed under
September 20, 2022
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-21-0726
not precedent except in the
Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) McLean County
DANTE ANTWAN WEBB, ) No. 18CF305
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) William A. Yoder,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Turner and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court held that defendant failed to establish that his counsel
provided ineffective assistance for failing to argue that a positive canine alert for
drugs in defendant’s vehicle could not constitute probable cause for a search,
because such an argument would have been meritless. The appellate court further
found that the trial court did not impose an excessive sentence for defendant’s
conviction of cannabis trafficking.
¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant, Dante Webb, was found guilty of cannabis
trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.1(a) (West 2018)), possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (720
ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2018)), and possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(f) (West 2018)). The
court found that possession of cannabis with intent to deliver and possession of cannabis merged
into cannabis trafficking and sentenced defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment in the Department
of Corrections. Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
argue in defendant’s motion to suppress that the police did not have probable cause to search his
vehicle and (2) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 We include only those facts necessary to our disposition of the issues raised by
defendant. In March 2018, defendant was charged with cannabis trafficking (720 ILCS
550/5.1(a) (West 2018)) (count I), unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (720
ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2018)) (count II), unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(f)
(West 2018)) (count III), unlawful possession of a firearm (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2018))
(count IV), and unlawful possession of firearm ammunition (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(2) (West 2018))
(count V). The charges arose out of events occurring on March 24, 2018, in which the police,
during a traffic stop, searched the cab of defendant’s tractor trailer and located cannabis and a
firearm. Ultimately, the State proceeded only on counts I, II, and III.
¶5 Prior to trial, defendant’s counsel filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained
in the search of defendant’s vehicle and all statements defendant made to the police. The motion
alleged, in part, that the police (1) did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle,
(2) improperly prolonged the stop to conduct a canine sniff investigation, and (3) obtained
evidence from defendant’s vehicle in violation of the fourth amendment. The motion did not
allege that a positive canine sniff alert could not constitute probable cause for a search.
¶6 A hearing on the motion to suppress was held in October 2020. Defendant
testified that he was a truck driver. On March 24, 2018, he was driving a tractor trailer
northbound on Interstate 55 in McLean County while pulling a car hauler. Defendant testified
that, although he was not violating any laws, he was pulled over by law enforcement. He
explained that the police searched his vehicle and arrested him without either a search warrant or
-2-
an arrest warrant. Defendant testified that the police seized several items, including two Illinois
license plates. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that, at the time of the stop, neither
plate was affixed to his vehicle or the trailer he was pulling.
¶7 Sergeant Jonathan Albee of the McLean County Sheriff’s Office testified for the
State. Albee testified that in March 2018, he was a deputy and canine handler assigned to the
patrol division. He explained that on March 24, 2018, he was on patrol sitting stationary near
mile marker 174 on Interstate 55 when a commercial motor vehicle drove by. The vehicle was a
white truck tractor pulling a partially loaded car hauler trailer. Albee testified that the vehicle
drew his attention because it had no driver’s side markings indicating the company name or a
Department of Transportation number, which Albee explained were “required by federal motor
carrier regulations.” Additionally, Albee thought it was “odd” that the trailer was only partially
loaded with cars since he knew that tractor trailers “are expensive to operate.” Albee testified
that he began to follow the vehicle and noticed that there was no registration displayed anywhere
on the trailer. As a result, Albee activated his emergency lights and stopped the vehicle. Albee
approached the vehicle on the passenger side and stepped up into the truck to speak with the
driver, whom he identified as defendant.
¶8 According to Albee, defendant “appeared to be in a state of panic.” Albee testified
that defendant’s movements “were very animated” and that he would stand up and sit back
down. Albee testified that, while truck drivers usually have a binder containing a “cab card,”
vehicle insurance information, and other documents, defendant was very disorganized and
provided him with information that he did not request, such as bills for tire repairs. Albee also
testified that defendant volunteered that he “had been stopped several times along this trip” and
that “the vehicles had been checked for drugs.” Albee testified that he thought this was “a bizarre
-3-
statement.” He explained that defendant handed him an Illinois-apportioned “cab card” which
did not match the California license plate displayed on the front of the vehicle. Albee testified
that this was “not normal.” Defendant also handed Albee a license plate for the trailer, which was
registered in Illinois. Albee asked defendant to accompany him to his patrol car. According to
Albee, at that time, he believed defendant was involved “in some type of criminal activity” and
requested another unit for assistance.
¶9 Albee testified that he and defendant sat in the front of his patrol car while he
began writing a warning and checking the license plates. Albee explained that Deputy Andrew
Erickson arrived as he did so. Erickson “took over my enforcement action” by continuing with
the written warning, running defendant’s information through several databases, and checking
defendant’s driver’s license. Albee testified that, meanwhile, he performed a free air sniff with
his canine partner around defendant’s truck. Albee noted that his canine was certified in the
detection of narcotics “through the Illinois law enforcement training standards boards *** [and]
through the National Police Canine Association in both narcotics and patrol.” Albee testified that
his canine was trained to detect odors of crack cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, ecstasy, and
marijuana. Albee explained that the canine gave a positive drug alert near the front driver’s side
of the vehicle. Albee informed defendant that he was going to search the vehicle and asked if
there was anything inside that would “startle him.” Albee testified that defendant told him that he
“had a buddy in there with him.” After placing defendant in the back of Erickson’s squad car,
Albee retrieved the other individual in the truck, Darrell McLain, and placed him in Erickson’s
squad car with defendant. Albee testified that he then searched defendant’s truck and located a
gun and cannabis in the sleeper portion of the cab. Thereafter, Albee placed defendant under
-4-
arrest and transported him to the McLean County Sheriff’s Office, where he was given his
Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)), and interviewed.
¶ 10 Erickson, a patrol deputy with the McLean County Sheriff’s Office, testified that
he was called to help Albee with a traffic stop on Interstate 55. Erickson testified that when he
arrived at the scene, he took over the enforcement action, which included continuing with the
written warning and running checks on defendant, the vehicle, and the trailer. While Erickson
did so, Albee conducted a canine sniff around defendant’s vehicle. Erickson testified that he
learned that there was a positive alert for drugs at the vehicle while he was still completing the
enforcement action. Erickson explained that, thereafter, defendant and McLain were placed in
the back of his squad car, where he gave them both their Miranda warnings.
¶ 11 The trial court suppressed one statement defendant made before he was given his
Miranda warnings but otherwise denied defendant’s motion to suppress. In denying the
remainder of the motion, the trial court found, inter alia, that Albee had probable cause to stop
defendant’s vehicle because there was no rear registration plate affixed to the trailer defendant
was hauling. See 625 ILCS 5/3-413(a) (West 2018) (stating registration plate issued for a trailer
must be attached to the rear thereof). The court also found that the positive canine alert gave the
officers probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle.
¶ 12 The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the trial court took judicial notice of
Albee’s and Erickson’s suppression hearing testimony. Thereafter, the State called Albee.
¶ 13 Albee’s trial testimony was substantially similar to his suppression hearing
testimony. He noted that he stopped defendant’s vehicle on March 24, 2018, because there was
no registration displayed on the trailer. He explained that, eventually, Erickson arrived to provide
assistance. While Erickson took over the traffic stop, Albee performed a free air sniff with his
-5-
canine partner, which resulted in a positive alert for drugs at defendant’s vehicle. Albee noted
that he asked defendant if there was anything in the vehicle that would “startle” him, and
defendant informed him that McLain was riding with him. Albee testified that, after securing
McLain, he searched defendant’s tractor-trailer. He explained that on the bunk in the sleeper
portion, he found a plastic bag containing a small container from a marijuana dispensary and a
cottage cheese container with a small amount of marijuana in it. Albee testified that, in a closet,
he found ten vacuum-sealed bags containing green plant material, which he suspected was
cannabis. Albee testified that he took possession of the material and transported it to the sheriff’s
office for chemical testing. The parties stipulated that the material was 2736 grams of cannabis.
¶ 14 The trial court admitted State’s Exhibit 10, a video of defendant’s interrogation by
Albee and Erickson at the sheriff’s department. During the interrogation, defendant told the
officers that he was a disabled veteran and used marijuana for pain relief following an ankle
injury. He also told the officers that he purchased the cannabis obtained from his vehicle from a
producer in Texas who usually sold cannabis to a dispensary. Defendant stated that most of the
cannabis was “just for me,” but “some of it was probably going to get sold.”
¶ 15 Defendant presented no evidence, and following closing arguments, the trial court
found defendant guilty of all three counts. The court ultimately determined that counts II and III
merged into count I.
¶ 16 The trial court held a sentencing hearing in September 2021. The parties
stipulated that the estimated street value of the cannabis was $40,000. The State presented
evidence in aggravation that on August 22, 2019, while defendant was on his way to appear in
court in the instant case, officers stopped him on Interstate 55 and located 7.8 grams of cocaine
and a scale in his car.
-6-
¶ 17 The presentence investigation report (PSI) showed that defendant’s criminal
record included, inter alia, 2005 convictions in Indiana of two counts of robbery and two counts
of criminal confinement, resulting in a six-year prison sentence. The PSI further disclosed that
while defendant had been on bond in the instant case, he had (1) been charged in Livingston
County with several offenses stemming from the August 22, 2019, traffic stop, (2) received a
traffic violation in Indiana, (3) been charged with retail theft in Lake County, and (4) been
charged with theft of services in Wisconsin. The PSI noted that defendant earned an honorable
discharge after serving in the United States Army and worked as a truck driver since
approximately 2011. The PSI further indicated that defendant was in a relationship with his
girlfriend, with whom he had a daughter, and provided financial support to them.
¶ 18 The State argued that defendant should receive a 15-year sentence, noting that
although defendant did not sell any of the cannabis, he nevertheless stood to profit given the
nature of the offense of trafficking. The State also emphasized that defendant’s prior criminal
history was aggravating and noted that defendant had “picked up several new cases” while he
was out on bond. The State asserted that a 15-year sentence was necessary to deter others and so
as not to deprecate the seriousness of the offense.
¶ 19 Defendant’s counsel responded that defendant should be sentenced to the
minimum sentence of eight years. Counsel argued that the court should not consider the pending
charges in Livingston County, because punishment based on those acts in the instant case risked
a double enhancement if he was later sentenced for those offenses in the Livingston County case.
While counsel acknowledged defendant’s prior six-year prison sentence in Indiana, he argued
that going “from six years to 15 years later, a 15-year sentence *** is too much of an increase”
and noted that defendant was a veteran. Defendant, in allocation, emphasized that he had held a
-7-
commercial driver’s license (CDL) since he was 21 years old. He explained that he owned a
trucking company, worked diligently as a truck driver, and would “continue to be an outstanding
member of society.” Defendant noted that he was a family man who went to church and paid for
his daughter to go to a private school. He further stated that he was a disabled veteran, only had
about five pounds of cannabis, and obtained the cannabis only for personal use to alleviate pain.
¶ 20 The trial court stated that it had considered the PSI, exhibits, arguments,
defendant’s statement in allocution, and all statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation. The
court noted that it would not consider the pending Livingston County charges due to the potential
sentencing issue raised by defendant’s counsel. The court considered defendant’s prior felony
convictions and noted that the remainder of defendant’s record was “relatively minor.” Further,
the court noted that defendant “has provided for his family and doesn’t seem to have a[n]
extensive substance abuse history.” However, the court explained that a community-based
sentence would not be an “appropriate sentence in this case,” as it “would deprecate the
seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and be inconsistent with the ends of justice.” The court
stated that “a sentence to the Illinois Department of Corrections is necessary for the protection of
the public” and sentenced defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment.
¶ 21 The court denied defendant’s subsequent motion to reconsider the sentence. This
appeal followed.
¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 23 A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 24 Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue in the
motion to suppress that the police did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. Specifically,
defendant contends that the positive canine alert for drugs, without more, could not have
-8-
constituted probable cause for the search of his vehicle, because the legislature decriminalized
the possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis in 2016 (720 ILCS 550/4(a) (West 2016)). The
State responds that such an argument would have been meritless because the positive alert
justified the search.
¶ 25 To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that such deficient
performance so prejudiced the defendant as to deny him or her a fair trial. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). A defendant must show that counsel’s performance
was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694. To prove prejudice when claiming that counsel was
ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence, a defendant must establish that the unargued
suppression motion was meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict
would have been different without the excludable evidence. People v. Eubanks, 2021 IL 126271,
¶ 30.
¶ 26 All individuals enjoy the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6. Generally, a search is per se unreasonable if
it is conducted without a warrant supported by probable cause and approved by a judge or
magistrate. People v. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 20. An exception to this general rule is recognized
for searches of automobiles, given the impracticability of securing a warrant before an
automobile escapes the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Hill, 2020 IL 124595,
¶ 21. However, even under the automobile exception, officers must still have probable cause to
search a vehicle. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 22.
-9-
¶ 27 Probable cause is established when the “totality of the facts and circumstances
known to the officer at the time of the search would justify a reasonable person in believing that
the automobile contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.” Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 23.
Probable cause deals with probabilities as opposed to certainties and is a flexible, commonsense
standard that does not require a showing that a particular belief is correct or more likely true than
false. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 24. Accordingly, to establish probable cause, an officer need not
rule out any innocent explanations for suspicious facts. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 24. Rather, the
facts available to the officer, including the plausibility of an innocent explanation, need only
warrant a reasonable person to believe that there is a reasonable probability that certain items
might be contraband or useful as evidence of a crime. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 24.
¶ 28 Defendant argues that the positive canine alert could not constitute probable cause
for the search of his vehicle, because Illinois decriminalized possession of cannabis under 10
grams in 2016. See 720 ILCS 550/4(a) (West 2016). Seizing on Hill’s statement that such
decriminalization “somewhat altered the status of cannabis as contraband” (Hill, 2020 IL
124595, ¶ 26), defendant contends that “all adult Illinoisans” were “allowed to possess” less than
10 grams of cannabis. He argues, therefore, that because the alert indicated only that his vehicle
might have contained a substance that he was allowed to possess, the alert alone “was simply not
enough in 2018 to provide probable cause to justify a search.”
¶ 29 In 2014, the legislature legalized the possession of cannabis for individuals who
had been granted a license to use it for medical purposes. See 410 ILCS 130/1 et seq. (West
2014). Thereafter, in 2016, the legislature passed a law stating that a licensed user of medical
cannabis “shall not be considered an unlawful user” and that medical cannabis “purchased by a
qualifying patient at a licensed dispensing organization shall be lawful products.” 410 ILCS
- 10 -
130/7 (West 2016). Also in 2016, the legislature decriminalized the possession of no more than
10 grams of cannabis and categorized such possession as a civil law violation punishable by only
a fine. See 720 ILCS 550/4(a) (West 2016).
¶ 30 In Hill, 2020 IL 124595, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether the
search of a defendant’s vehicle was justified in light of the foregoing amendments. In Hill, the
defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of cocaine obtained pursuant to a search of his
vehicle. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 4. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, evidence was
presented that, after the arresting officer activated his emergency lights to stop the defendant’s
vehicle, the defendant continued driving for several blocks, which, based on the officer’s
experience, typically meant the occupants were concealing contraband. Hill, 2020 IL 124595,
¶ 5. Once the vehicle stopped, the officer approached it, smelled cannabis, and observed a bud of
cannabis on the back seat. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶¶ 5, 7, 9, 10. The officer then searched the
vehicle and found cannabis and a rock of crack cocaine. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 7. Although the
trial court granted the motion to suppress, this court reversed. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶¶ 11, 12.
¶ 31 The defendant appealed to the supreme court, arguing that because the possession
of small amounts of cannabis was decriminalized, such possession was no longer criminal
activity and cannabis was no longer contraband. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 25. The defendant
asserted that, without more facts to establish that he illegally possessed a criminal amount of
cannabis or that a crime was committed, the officer lacked probable cause for the search. Hill,
2020 IL 124595, ¶ 25.
¶ 32 In addressing the defendant’s argument, the court first distinguished People v.
Stout, 106 Ill. 2d 77 (1985), which held that the odor of burnt cannabis alone provides probable
cause to search a vehicle, because the officer in Hill relied on more than the mere odor of
- 11 -
cannabis to justify the search. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶¶ 15-16. Specifically, the officer also relied
on (1) his experience that when a vehicle delays pulling over, its occupants are often hiding
contraband and (2) his observing a bud of cannabis on the back seat. Hill, 2020 IL 124595,
¶¶ 16-17.
¶ 33 Thereafter, the court held that the officer had probable cause for the search of the
defendant’s vehicle. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 26. The court rejected the defendant’s
decriminalization argument as “fatally flawed.” Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 31. The court explained
that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement equates “contraband” with illegality as
opposed to unlawful acts subject to criminal penalties. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 28. As such,
whether an item is contraband is determined by whether the legislature prohibits possession of
the item, not whether a defendant would be subject to criminal penalties for having it. Hill, 2020
IL 124595, ¶ 29. The court explained that, therefore, “[w]hile the decriminalization of cannabis
diminished the penalty for possession of no more than 10 grams of cannabis to a civil law
violation punishable by a fine, possession of cannabis remained illegal,” and the
decriminalization “did not alter the status of cannabis as contraband.” Hill, 2020 IL 124595,
¶ 31.
¶ 34 The court, however, acknowledged that the Compassionate Use of Medical
Cannabis Pilot Program Act (Act) (410 ILCS 130/1 et seq. (West 2016)) “somewhat altered the
status of cannabis as contraband” in that “possession of cannabis is not contraband for medical
users.” Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶¶ 26, 32. Even so, the court explained that, while the mere
presence of cannabis for medical users may not necessarily amount to criminal activity or
possession of contraband, such users must still possess and use cannabis in accordance with the
Act, which includes possessing cannabis in a motor vehicle only when it is in a “ ‘sealed,
- 12 -
tamper-evident medical cannabis container.’ ” Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 34 (quoting 625 ILCS
5/11-502.1(b), (c) (West 2016)). The court concluded that, even if the officer presumed that the
defendant could legally possess the cannabis, there was probable cause that cannabis in the
vehicle was not properly contained, in violation of the Act, given evidence that the officer
believed the defendant may have been concealing contraband before the stop, smelled cannabis
near the vehicle, and saw a loose bud of cannabis in the back seat. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 35.
¶ 35 Contrary to defendant’s argument, “all adult Illinoisans” were not “allowed to
possess” less than 10 grams of cannabis after the legislature decriminalized such possession.
“Decriminalization” is not synonymous with “legalization.” In re O.S., 2018 IL App (1st)
171765, ¶ 29. Thus, as the supreme court clarified in Hill, even after the legislature
decriminalized the possession of small amounts of cannabis, the substance continued to be
contraband, and its possession remained illegal. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 31.
¶ 36 Defendant nevertheless argues that probable cause was lacking in this case. He
contends that Hill is distinguishable, as are People v. Rowell, 2021 IL App (4th) 180819, ¶ 31,
and People v. Sims, 2022 IL App (2d) 200391, ¶ 93, which both held that, despite the
decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of cannabis, probable cause to search the
defendants’ vehicles existed where the officers smelled cannabis emanating from them.
Defendant contends that here, unlike Hill, Rowell, and Sims, there was no evidence that Albee or
Erickson smelled cannabis and nothing else “pointed to illegal drug possession.” This argument
is unavailing because even without evidence that Albee or Erickson smelled cannabis, there was
evidence pointing to illegal drug possession.
¶ 37 Defendant disregards that a positive canine alert for contraband constitutes
probable cause to search a vehicle. See People v. Campbell, 67 Ill. 2d 308, 315-16 (1977) (“It is
- 13 -
clear that the detection of narcotics by police smelling the odor is a permissible method of
establishing probable cause [citations], and we see no significant difference in the use of dogs
under identical circumstances.”); People v. Thomas, 2018 IL App (4th) 170440, ¶ 74 (“If a dog
smells drugs in a vehicle, the police have probable cause to search the vehicle.”). At the hearing
on the motion to suppress, Albee testified that his canine partner was certified in the detection of
narcotics and, in addition to marijuana, was trained to detect crack cocaine, methamphetamine,
heroin, and ecstasy. Like cannabis, it is illegal to possess any of those substances. 720 ILCS
570/402(a)(2) (West 2016) (cocaine); 720 ILCS 646/60(a) (West 2016) (methamphetamine); 720
ILCS 570/402(a)(1) (West 2016) (heroin); 720 ILCS 570/402(a)(7.5) (West 2016) (ecstasy).
Because Albee’s canine alerted to the presence of at least one of the foregoing illegal substances,
probable cause existed for the search of defendant’s vehicle. Thus, we conclude that, had counsel
argued in the motion to suppress that the canine alert did not constitute probable cause, that
argument would have been meritless. Defendant, therefore, cannot show that he was prejudiced
by counsel’s failure to raise that argument. Accordingly, we hold that defendant’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel fails.
¶ 38 B. Excessive Sentence
¶ 39 Next, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him
to 14 years’ imprisonment. He contends that he should have received the minimum sentence of
eight years because the amount of cannabis he was transporting was “barely more than the
minimum” to constitute cannabis trafficking. He further argues that the trial court’s sentence
failed to reflect his “high potential for rehabilitation.”
¶ 40 When the trial court’s sentencing decision is within the statutory range for the
offense, it will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App
- 14 -
(4th) 200081, ¶ 111. A sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion where it is greatly at variance
with the spirit and purpose of the law or where it is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of
the offense. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶ 111. In determining what sentence to impose,
the trial court may consider (1) the defendant’s history, character and rehabilitative potential,
(2) the seriousness of the offense, (3) the need to protect society, and (4) the need for punishment
and deterrence. People v. Klein, 2022 IL App (4th) 200599, ¶ 34. The seriousness of the offense
is the most important sentencing factor, and the trial court need not give greater weight to
rehabilitation or mitigating factors than to the severity of the offense. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th)
200081, ¶ 112. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court merely because we
might have weighed a factor differently. Klein, 2022 IL App (4th) 200599, ¶ 37. We presume
that a sentence imposed within the statutory range is proper. Klein, 2022 IL App (4th) 200599,
¶ 37.
¶ 41 Defendant was convicted of cannabis trafficking involving more than 2000 grams
but not more than 5000 grams, which carries a prison term of between 8 and 30 years. 720 ILCS
550/5.1(b), 5(f) (West 2018); 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-30(a) (West 2018). The trial court sentenced
defendant to 14 years of imprisonment. This sentence was within the statutory limits for the
offense.
¶ 42 Defendant’s argument that the trial court should have sentenced him to the
minimum sentence—eight years—because the offense was not serious and because he is likely to
be rehabilitated is unavailing. The court considered these factors at sentencing. Defendant’s
counsel argued that defendant was a veteran and that eight years was an appropriate sentence.
Defendant stated to the court that he held a CDL since he was 21 years old, owned a trucking
company, and worked diligently as a truck driver. He further stated that he was a family man
- 15 -
who went to church, paid for his daughter to go to a private school, and obtained the cannabis—
which he claimed amounted to only about five pounds—only for personal use to alleviate pain.
The trial court explained that it considered the PSI, the parties’ arguments, defendant’s statement
in allocution, and all statutory factors. Although the trial court acknowledged that defendant
“does provide for his family” and that much of defendant’s criminal record was “relatively
minor,” the court noted that defendant’s record included prior convictions of robbery and
criminal confinement, resulting in a six-year prison sentence. Thereafter, the trial court explained
that imposition of a 14-year sentence was appropriate given the “seriousness of the defendant’s
conduct” and was “necessary for the protection of the public.” Defendant, in effect, argues that
the trial court should have weighed the mitigating factors presented to the trial court differently.
However, the trial court did consider them and gave more weight to the seriousness of the
offense and the need to protect the public. This was proper. We see no abuse of discretion in the
trial court’s assessment of the proper sentence to impose. Accordingly, we will not disturb the
trial court’s imposition of a 14-year sentence.
¶ 43 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 44 For the reasons stated, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence for
cannabis trafficking.
¶ 45 Affirmed.
- 16 -