People v. McIntyre

2020 IL App (1st) 171640-UNo. 1-17-1640
Order filed July 29, 2020
Third Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 16 CR 3922
)
DAVEAD MCINTYRE, ) Honorable
) Diane G. Cannon,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices McBride and Howse concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Vacated and remanded for re-sentencing. Trial court improperly considered
pending criminal charges for lewd exposure in aggravation.
¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Davead McIntyre was convicted of being an armed
habitual criminal (AHC) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a)(2) (West 2016)), and sentenced to 20 years’
imprisonment. Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive and based on the
trial court's improper consideration of an aggravating factor—his pending charges for lewd
No. 1-17-1640
exposure committed while in custody. For the reasons set forth herein, we vacate defendant’s
sentence and remand for resentencing.
¶3 Because defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction, we recount the facts to the extent necessary to resolve the issue raised on appeal.
Defendant was arrested on February 23, 2016, after officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle
in which defendant was a passenger. Nodisha Hawkins, another passenger in the car, testified
that as the driver started to pull over, defendant threw a gun on the side of the car, in between the
seats.
¶4 Investigator Simone, with the Cook County Sheriff’s Police (first name not in the record),
testified that as he approached the car on the passenger side, he shone a flashlight inside and saw
a black and silver gun near the floorboard of the rear passenger seat. Simone recovered the gun
and found that it was loaded with 13 rounds of ammunition. Hawkins informed the officers that
the gun belonged to defendant. Both the gun and the ammunition were introduced into evidence.
After hearing this evidence and that defendant had prior convictions for burglary in case number
10 CR 07671 and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) in case number 12 CR
15508, the trial court convicted defendant of AHC.
¶5 At sentencing, the trial court heard arguments in aggravation and mitigation. In
aggravation, the State offered defendant's presentence investigation (PSI) report and noted that
for the burglary defendant was sentenced to boot camp, which he violated and was then
sentenced three years’ imprisonment. The State also noted that for the UUWF defendant received
four years’ imprisonment. In addition, the State pointed out that defendant’s PSI reflected that
while he was in custody he was charged with three misdemeanors for lewd exposure. The State
-2-
No. 1-17-1640
asked the court to consider those charges “over and above [his] criminal history,” even though
the court granted the State’s request to nolle pros those charges.
¶6 In mitigation, defense counsel also offered defendant's PSI to demonstrate that he has
"strong family support." This included his mother being "involved in every stage of [the] case,"
attending many court dates and reaching out to defense counsel between court dates. Counsel
also pointed out that defendant's significant other was present throughout the trial. Counsel
argued that defendant’s familial support indicates "a strong potential for rehabilitation."
¶7 In announcing sentence, the court stated: “I will consider [the] three exposures of your
penis in the lockup that are pending before the court on three separate occasions as I do believe
those go to your—I believe they are relevant here.” The court clarified, “I'm not saying you're
guilty of them. I'm just saying the three separate charges will be considered[.]”
¶8 The court continued that defendant had “been given opportunity after opportunity at
rehabilitation” at “every chance imaginable.” The court acknowledged that it had no reason to
doubt defendant's familial support but pointed out that his convictions go back to 2010, including
his burglary for which he received boot camp that ended unsatisfactorily. The court also noted
that, upon his release from the penitentiary, defendant was arrested with a firearm and sent back
to the penitentiary. The court explicitly stated it would not consider defendant's pending arson
case, as that case was before another judge. The court then sentenced defendant to 20 years’
imprisonment and denied a motion to reconsider that sentence.
¶9 Defendant’s arguments on appeal are directed exclusively at his sentence. Among them,
defendant argues that the trial court erred in considering his pending lewd-exposure cases. He
also argues more generally that his sentence was excessive in light of his background.
-3-
No. 1-17-1640
¶ 10 We afford great deference to a trial court’s sentence and will not reverse it absent an
abuse of discretion. People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 209-10 (2000); People v. Butler, 2013 IL
App (1st) 120923, ¶ 30. But when a trial court considers an improper factor in aggravation, the
court abuses its discretion. People v. Minter, 2015 IL App (1st) 120958, ¶ 147.
¶ 11 Here, defendant points to the trial court’s express consideration of defendant’s three
pending charges for lewd exposure while in county lockup. The trial court told defendant that
these three exposure charges “go to your—I believe they are relevant here.” The court
emphasized to defendant that the court was “not saying you’re guilty” of those charges but
merely that the three charges “will be considered.” Defendant says that this consideration was
improper.
¶ 12 It would be going too far to say that evidence of unproven criminal conduct is entirely out
of bounds in a sentencing hearing. As our supreme court has explained:
“Whether a defendant had been prosecuted and convicted for other misconduct, proof of
which is offered at a sentencing hearing, is not, in our judgment, controlling as to its
admissibility. More important are the questions of relevancy and accuracy of the
information submitted. Those questions are, of course, initially determined by the trial
judge in the exercise of an informed discretion. Where, as here, that information indicates
defendant solicited another to commit criminal offenses, and comes in the form of sworn
testimony by the party solicited, presented in open court and subject to cross-examination,
its admission by the trial judge is not an abuse of discretion. The conduct testified to was
relevant to a determination of a proper sentence in that it bore upon the likelihood or
unlikelihood that defendant would commit other offenses; it appeared trustworthy;
-4-
No. 1-17-1640
defendant had the opportunity to face and cross-examine the witness; and the accuracy of
the information was not challenged. While trial judges should be cautious in admitting such
proof and sensitive to the possibilities of prejudice to defendant if inaccurate information
is considered, we believe that a trial judge may, under circumstances such as those here,
properly receive proof of criminal conduct for which no prosecution and conviction
ensued.” (Emphasis added.) People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482, 498–99 (1981).
¶ 13 The question, then, is whether the trial court relied on evidence at the sentencing hearing
that was relevant and under circumstances that could confirm its accuracy. So when evidence of
other crimes was admitted at sentencing “through the testimony of a witness with first-hand
knowledge” who was “subject to cross-examination,” and that evidence was relevant to the
question of recidivism, our supreme court found the dictates of LaPointe to be satisfied, and the
evidence was properly admitted. People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 461 (1983).
¶ 14 On the other hand, we have consistently held that the mere existence of arrests or pending
charges, without additional evidence presented at the sentencing hearing to test the accuracy of
the underlying facts, may not be considered in aggravation. See Minter, 2015 IL App (1st)
120958, ¶ 148 (improper to consider pending charges for possession and aggravated battery as
aggravating factors); People v. Johnson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 570, 576 (2004) (improper to consider
arrest for sexual assault in Arkansas); People v. Wallace, 145 Ill. App. 3d 247, 256 (1986)
(improper to consider pending rape charge); People v. Thomas, 111 Ill. App. 3d 451, 454 (1983)
(“[M]ere listing of prior arrests, not resulting in convictions, in a presentence report does not
satisfy the accuracy requirement of La Pointe. We therefore hold that mere arrests, standing
-5-
No. 1-17-1640
alone, without further proof of the conduct alleged, are inadmissible in the sentencing
determination.”).
¶ 15 Here, the PSI reflected two of the pending lewd-exposure charges, and the State advised
the trial court of a pending third charge. But no evidence was presented at the sentencing
regarding these charges. So while we agree with the trial court that these charges may have been
relevant, the accuracy of those charges was not tested in any way. We agree with defendant that
it was error to consider the pending lewd-exposure charges.
¶ 16 The State agrees, too. But the State argues that, “[w]hile defendant is correct that pending
charges may not be utilized in aggravation of a sentence,” the error does not require a new
sentencing hearing, because the record does not show that the trial court placed significant
weight on that particular factor.
¶ 17 The trial court’s consideration of an improper factor is not cause for remand if the record
demonstrates that the weight placed on that factor was so insignificant that it did not lead to a
greater sentence. People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1, 21 (2008). But “[w]here the reviewing court is
unable to determine the weight given to an improperly considered factor, the cause must be
remanded for resentencing.” People v. Bourke, 96 Ill. 2d 327, 332 (1983); People v. Rottau, 2017
IL App (5th) 150046, ¶ 85 (quoting Bourke); see also People v. Beals, 162 Ill.2d 497, 509 (1994).
¶ 18 In determining whether the trial court afforded the improper factor significant weight, we
consider: “(1) whether the trial court made any dismissive or emphatic comments in reciting its
consideration of the improper factor; and (2) whether the sentence received was substantially less
than the maximum sentence permissible by statute.” People v. Abdelhadi, 2012 IL App (2d)
111053, ¶ 18.
-6-
No. 1-17-1640
¶ 19 The record shows that that the court expressly mentioned defendant’s lewd exposure
charges in aggravation. The court stated that it considered the aggravating factors of defendant's
pending charges, his criminal and social history, and his likelihood of rehabilitation. Neither of
those factors were emphasized or dismissed in any fashion. See Johnson, 2017 IL App (4th)
160920, ¶ 50 (remanding for resentencing where trial court “did not make any dismissive or
emphatic comments” and “simply enumerate[ed] [the factors] among other aggravating factors”).
Nor was the improper factor simply a general comment made in passing at sentencing. See People
v. Rios, 318 Ill. App. 3d 354, 368 (2000) (finding that the trial court’s mention of the “tragic
impact” on the victim and the victim’s family did not indicate that the court considered the victim’s
death in aggravation).
¶ 20 While the pending charges may not have been the sole reason for defendant’s given
sentence, they were put on par with the other aggravating factors heard. Moreover, the court's main
focus appeared to be defendant’s repeated criminal acts, into which the court lumped the pending
unproven charges against defendant. As such, there is no indication of how much weight each
factor was given or whether the sentence would have been lesser had the lewd exposure charges
not been considered.
¶ 21 In reaching this conclusion, we are not persuaded by the State’s argument that, given
defendant’s criminal history, the court’s consideration of the lewd-exposure charges played an
insignificant role in increasing his sentence. The record shows that the State expressly asked the
court to “consider these misdemeanor public indecency, lewd exposure, three separate
misdemeanor cases that are pending before your Honor over and above [defendant's] criminal
-7-
No. 1-17-1640
background.” (Emphasis added). The court agreed to consider the charges, stating that they were
relevant.
¶ 22 Defendant’s conviction, as a Class X felony, carried a penalty range of six to thirty years’
imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-
25(a) (West 2016). Given that the sentence is 14 years above the statutory minimum, it is
impossible to determine whether the sentence would have been shorter had the lewd exposure
charges not been considered. See Abdelhadi, 2012 IL App (2d) 111053, ¶ 19 (remanding for new
hearing, even though sentence was substantially below maximum, as reviewing court could not
discern how much weight was placed on improper aggravating factor). Because it is unclear
whether or how much weight was given to defendant’s pending charges, we must vacate the
sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing. See Walker, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 301-03.
¶ 23 Defendant also claims that, in general, his sentence was excessive. The 20-year sentence,
he says, did not match his non-violent background. And, he says, the trial court treated him more
like a career criminal, and less like someone in his early twenties with teenage prior felonies, when
it told him: “[Y]ou have been given opportunity after opportunity at rehabilitation. You were given
every chance imaginable.”
¶ 24 Since we are vacating the sentence and remanding based on the error above, we have no
grounds to consider a proportionality argument. But in the interests of judicial economy,
recognizing that a re-sentence is coming that could be subject to a second appeal, we will say this
much: We agree with defendant that 20 years in prison was an exceptionally lengthy sentence for
someone never convicted of a violent crime, and who had only two prior felonies in his
background—the bare minimum to even qualify as an armed habitual criminal. Other than his
-8-
No. 1-17-1640
burglary committed as a juvenile, defendant’s only convictions are for the possession of a firearm,
made illegal because of that first felony. By no means do we condone the illegal possession of a
firearm, but twenty years strikes us as an extreme sentence on this record. We would respectfully
ask the trial court to take these observations into account on re-sentencing.
¶ 25 We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
¶ 26 Vacated and remanded.
-9-