Appeal from Circuit Court of Macon County No. 12CF98. Honorable Lisa Holder White, Judge Presiding.
On appeal from defendant's sentence to an extended term for domestic battery and an order for the payment of $490.82 in restitution, the appellate court rejected defendant's contentions that even though he was eligible for an extended term, the trial court based the imposition of the extended term on a misunderstanding of his criminal history and that restitution was ordered without an evidentiary basis, since defendant raised the issue of the extended term for the first time on appeal and no exception to the forfeiture rule applied, and further, defendant never contested or requested further evidence when the State stated the amount of restitution, thereby subjecting defendant's claim to forfeiture.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Pope and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment and opinion.
[¶1] In August 2012, a jury convicted defendant, Tristan T. Hanson, of criminal damage to property (damage to property not exceeding $300) (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(2) (West 2010)) and domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2010)). Because defendant had a prior conviction for violating an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-30 (West 2008)) in Peoria County case No. 08-CM-833, his domestic battery conviction was elevated from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class 4 felony (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(b)
(West 2010)). At an October 2012 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to (1) an extended-term sentence of 5 years for domestic battery and (2) 364 days for criminal damage to property. The court also ordered defendant to pay $490.82 in restitution.
[¶2] Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) sentencing him to an extended-term sentence for domestic battery and (2) ordering him to pay $490.82 in restitution without an evidentiary basis. We disagree and affirm.
[¶3] I. BACKGROUND
[¶4] Defendant's convictions in this case stem from a January 2012 domestic dispute that occurred when defendant's girlfriend attempted to end the couple's relationship. The evidence at trial showed that defendant slapped and choked his soon-to-be ex-girlfriend and punched the windows and hood of her car, causing damage. The jury convicted defendant of domestic battery and criminal damage to property, but it acquitted him of the more serious offense of aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5) (West 2010)).
[¶5] A. The October 2012 Sentencing Hearing
[¶6] In October 2012, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. As pertinent to the issues in this appeal, the presentence investigation report (PSI) indicated that defendant had the following prior convictions: (1) a 2006 conviction for retail theft (720 ILCS 5/16A-3 (West 2004)) (a Class 3 felony) in Sangamon County case No. 05-CF-1341; (2) a 2007 conviction for aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-5 (West 2006)) (a Class 1 felony) in Peoria County case No. 07-CF-452; and (3) a 2008 conviction for violation of an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-30 (West 2008)) (a Class A misdemeanor) in Peoria County case No. 08-CM-833. The PSI also indicated that defendant had a pending domestic battery charge (a Class A misdemeanor) in Macon County case No. 12-CM-76, which was in the pretrial stages when the PSI was prepared.
[¶7] Because defendant had prior Class 1 and Class 3 felony convictions within the past 10 years, he was eligible for extended-term sentencing on his Class 4 felony conviction for domestic battery in this case. 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(b)(1) (West 2012). The State argued, in pertinent part, as follows:
" [Defendant] was on parole from the Department of Corrections when the offenses we're here for sentencing on today were committed. He is extended-term eligible as to the domestic battery with a prior case, as it's a Class 4 felony."
Defendant did not object to the State's assertion that he was extended-term eligible.
[¶8] Prior to the parties' arguments, the trial court asked the State if it had a " restitution figure," to which the State replied, " I do. It's four hundred and ninety dollars and eighty-two cents." Defendant did not object to this figure, nor did he request a hearing on the issue of restitution. Following the parties' arguments and defendant's statement in allocution, the court sentenced defendant, as stated.
[¶9] B. Defendant's November 2012 Motion To Reduce His Sentence
[¶10] In November 2012, defendant pro se filed a motion to reduce his sentence in which he essentially claimed that (1) he " was forced to trial" because the State would not go along with the terms of his desired plea agreement and (2) the domestic battery charge should not have been enhanced to a Class 4 felony because his
prior violation of an order of protection took place four years ago in a different county with a different victim. The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant on his motion. In April 2013, following a hearing at which counsel argued that defendant's sentence was excessive, the court denied defendant's motion. In explaining its ruling, the court found that defendant's sentence was within the ...