Motion to correct an invalid sentence; People v Boykin

The court held that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to correct his allegedly invalid sentence.” On appeal, defendant argued that his 40-to-60-year sentence for his CSC I conviction was “invalid because the trial court failed to consider the mitigating factor of his youth when sentencing him.” Here, the record showed “that the original sentencing judge considered defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor during sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s counsel explicitly argued that defendant was only 17 years old. Defense counsel argued that defendant’s young age, lack of prior record, and good upbringing were mitigating factors, and thus, the court should focus on defendant’s rehabilitation instead of his punishment.” The court held that like in Boykin, “defense counsel explicitly advanced an argument based on defendant’s youth at sentencing, therefore, the [trial] court was aware of defendant’s age and juvenile status when making its determination.” Further, the court held that “because an ‘on-the-record sentencing explanation is not necessary to ensure that a sentencer considers a defendant’s youth,’ . . . the trial court did not err by failing to make an explicit finding regarding defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor.” The record established “that defendant’s youth was argued at the sentencing hearing, and thus, the [trial] court necessarily considered defendant’s youth in making its determination.” Also, the trial “court properly tailored its sentence to defendant and gave specific reasons for imposing the sentence, including the disciplining of defendant, the protection of society, and deterrence.” Affirmed.