{
  "id": 3504828,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS SANSOREZ, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sansorez",
  "decision_date": "1987-06-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201486\u20140478",
  "first_page": "986",
  "last_page": "988",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 986"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. App. 3d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3535656
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "255"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/145/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Ill. App. 3d 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3443434
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "344-45"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/132/0339-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 2d 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2537013
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "445-51"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/96/0441-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. App. 3d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8498634
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "114"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/138/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 993",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3525619
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1006-07"
        },
        {
          "page": "1006-07"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/128/0993-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3115686
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/96/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. App. 3d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3608530
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/153/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S. Ct. 1064",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        3519528,
        3519298
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1073"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/118/0355-01",
        "/us/118/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 U.S. 356",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3519298
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "373-74"
        },
        {
          "page": "227"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/118/0356-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 418,
    "char_count": 5754,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.989406066647367e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3722608924304081
    },
    "sha256": "39b76fe30b79f9c0e7173cfa9be3c29c0fa22bddcd643f6a40b4316a144ec814",
    "simhash": "1:8b4f18ce36d29971",
    "word_count": 953
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:40.510932+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS SANSOREZ, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE UNVERZAGT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Carlos Sansorez, was convicted of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 56\u00bd, par. 1401(c)) and sentenced to nine years\u2019 imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, claiming that the trial court considered an improper factor in sentencing. He does not challenge the validity of his conviction.\nDefendant was arrested December 18, 1985, along with Miguel Chan, when they delivered cocaine to an undercover police officer. Chan subsequently pleaded guilty and received the minimum sentence of six years in exchange for his testimony against defendant. The undercover officer also testified. At trial, defendant testified that Chan requested defendant to pick up a package which turned out to contain a work glove. The following day, Chan called defendant and told him that they were going to make some money. At Chan\u2019s insistence, defendant retrieved the glove and gave it to the officer in exchange for $4,200. Defendant testified he did not realize that the glove contained cocaine.\nDefendant was found guilty of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. At a sentencing hearing on April 16, 1986, the court sentenced him to nine years in the Department of Corrections. At the hearing, the following colloquy occurred:\n\u201cTHE COURT: The name of the country that you and your cousin come from is what, Belize?\nMR. SHORTS (Defense Counsel): Belize. That\u2019s former British Honduras. It\u2019s on the Caribbean, Your Honor. The area in square miles, 8000; population, 166,000. A very small independent nation. As I say, it was formerly known as British Honduras.\nTHE COURT: It is known, also, for being a conduit for drug trafficking, too.\nMR. SHORTS: If I may say so, I\u2019m not aware of that fact, . Your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Well, I can\u2019t prove it, because I haven\u2019t been there, and I don\u2019t intend to go there, but I have read that in a couple of places, but I don\u2019t think it has much bearing here as to same.\u201d\nFrom these remarks, defendant concludes that the court based its sentence in part on an improper factor, the defendant\u2019s national origin.\nIt is true, as defendant contends, that all persons must be subject to like punishment, regardless of alienage or national origin. (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356, 373-74, 30 L. Ed. 220, 227, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1073.) The aggravating factors which a sentencing judge may properly consider are listed in the Unified Code of Corrections. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005\u20145\u20143.2.) Needless to say, the defendant\u2019s national origin is not among them. However, an isolated remark by the trial judge does not mean that this was a factor in the sentencing decision.\nThe trial court is in the best position to determine the proper sentence. (People v. Seals (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 417, 427.) Reliance by the trial court on an improper aggravating factor does not always require a remand for resentencing. Rather, where it can be determined that the weight placed on the improperly considered factor was so insignificant that it did not lead to a greater sentence, remand is not required. People v. Bourke (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 327, 332; People v. Edwards (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 993, 1006-07.\nIn the instant case, it is clear that the trial court referred to the alleged improper factor \u201cin passing.\u201d (See People v. Edwards (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 993, 1006-07.) The quoted remark was an isolated one, and the court immediately stated, \u201cI don\u2019t think it has much bearing here.\u201d As in Bourke, the court gave primary emphasis to two proper factors in imposing sentence. The first was the lack of veracity of defendant\u2019s defense, which the court characterized as \u201cpoppycock.\u201d It is proper for the court to consider defendant\u2019s perceived perjury at trial when sentencing him. (People v. Moffitt (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 106, 114.) The second factor was that the sentence imposed was necessary to \u201csend a message\u201d that such conduct will not be tolerated. The need to deter others from committing similar crimes is a proper aggravating factor. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005\u20145\u20143.2(7).\nIt is obvious from the record that the trial court\u2019s isolated remark about defendant\u2019s native country played an insignificant role, if any, in the imposition of the nine-year sentence, which is far below the maximum of 30 years. The cases cited by defendant are distinguishable. In People v. McAndrew (1968), 96 Ill. App. 2d 441, as opposed to an isolated remark, the appellate court opinion quotes six pages of transcript in which the trial court denigrated defendant\u2019s lifestyle. (96 Ill. App. 2d 441, 445-51.) In People v. McCumber (1985), 132 Ill. App. 3d 339, 344-45, the court specifically referred at least twice to defendant\u2019s three previous abortions in imposing sentence. In People v. Wallace (1986), 145 Ill. App. 3d 247, 255, the court stated it \u201cmust consider\u201d triple-hearsay evidence of defendant\u2019s arrest in South Carolina, which did not result in a conviction. In all three cases, the improper factor obviously played a role in the sentence. Here, it is equally clear that the trial court\u2019s single remark was not a factor in imposing the nine-year sentence.\nFor the foregoing reasons, defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence are affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nREINHARD and DUNN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE UNVERZAGT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. Joseph Weller and Robert C. Cooper, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Fred L. Foreman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Waukegan (Robert J. Biderman and Peter C. Drummond, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS SANSOREZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201486\u20140478\nOpinion filed June 26, 1987.\nG. Joseph Weller and Robert C. Cooper, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nFred L. Foreman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Waukegan (Robert J. Biderman and Peter C. Drummond, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0986-01",
  "first_page_order": 1008,
  "last_page_order": 1010
}