 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Bowman4/20/2005
d both mitigating factors and the defendant's rehabilitative potential in making its sentencing determinations and was within its discretion when it imposed the sentence. Perruquet, 68 Ill. 2d at 154, 368 N.E.2d at 883. We find no abuse of discretion here.
Finally, defendant argues the trial court erred when it relied upon factors inherent in the offenses to extend defendant's sentence. Defendant complains that the court relied on the death of Alexander and injuries to Rosario, as well as the ages of Alexander and Rosario, to extend his sentence.
It is error for a judge to consider in aggravation a factor that is inherent in the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced. People v. Gonzalez, 151 Ill. 2d 79, 83-84, 600 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (1992). However, the nature of the offense, including the circumstances and extent of each element as committed, is a proper factors to consider in imposing a sentence. People v. Miller, 225 Ill. App. 3d 92, 104, 589 N.E.2d 617, 625 (1992).
Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not improperly consider in aggravation factors that were inherent in the offenses for which defendant was being sentenced. The trial court only considered those factors outlined by statute and went through each factor individually. See 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1 (West 2002). Reviewing the trial court's statement regarding defendant's sentence, it is clear that the court was referring to the facts of the case when it stated, " ou have got a 3-year old boy who was walking in a crosswalk with a green light when he was mowed down by Defendant." These remarks made by the trial court involved the nature of and circumstances surrounding the offense. It is proper for the trial court to consider these factors in determining an appropriate sentence. Miller, 225 Ill. App. 3d at 104, 589 N.E.2d at 625. Consequently, we reject defendant's claim.
Based on the aforementioned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOFFMAN and SOUTH, JJ., concur.
|