{
  "id": 2604430,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201489\u20140752",
  "first_page": "1078",
  "last_page": "1081",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 1078"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "412 N.E.2d 541",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5476013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/82/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "498 N.E.2d 650",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3643803
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/148/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "497 N.E.2d 1138",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1143"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill. 2d 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3173780
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "269"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/113/0256-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 447,
    "char_count": 6338,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4120630198903488
    },
    "sha256": "0dc3f09fbe0976e5ba6edbf7a02afb3e42379f0760d1d6e9148c517da37f27fb",
    "simhash": "1:e10ed7dd132e0a32",
    "word_count": 1061
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:27.836966+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. DAVID MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McCUSKEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, David Mitchell, appeals his eight-year sentence for aggravated battery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 12\u20144(a)).\nAt trial, Officer Greg Piazza testified the defendant had lived with Piazza\u2019s sister, Deanna, until about a year before the offense. On April 14, 1989, Deanna married another man. After Piazza attended the wedding reception, he, his fiancee, and another woman went to a tavern. Around midnight they left the tavern to go to Baxter\u2019s Bar and Grill.\nAs they walked toward Baxter\u2019s, Piazza saw the defendant standing across the street. The defendant crossed the street and said, \u201cGive Deanna my best.\u201d Piazza and his companions said nothing. When they arrived at Baxter\u2019s and learned there was a cover charge, they decided not to go inside. As they walked away, the defendant yelled, \u201cHey, pussy.\u201d After Piazza made an obscene gesture, the defendant ran in front of him and began taunting him. Piazza called the defendant a lowlife and said he was not going to fight.\nThe defendant turned his back as if he were about to leave and put his hand in his pocket. He then spun around and punched Piazza in the left eye, causing him to fall to the ground. Piazza, though dazed and bleeding, was able to walk to the police station. His two companions then took him to the emergency room for treatment. As a result of his injury, he missed six weeks of work.\nOn cross-examination, Piazza admitted he had drunk about eight beers in the four hours prior to the offense. However, he denied he was intoxicated.\nPiazza\u2019s two companions then testified. Their testimonies generally corroborated Piazza\u2019s testimony. They also testified that after the defendant punched Piazza, an object fell on the ground. The defendant retrieved it and ran away.\nDennis Mathis testified he saw the defendant and the victim arguing in the street. The defendant then punched Piazza. He did not see Piazza strike the defendant before the punch was thrown.\nRobert Hinson testified he and the defendant had been drinking on the night of the incident. After they went to two taverns, they decided to go to Baxter\u2019s. As they approached the bar, they saw Piazza with two women. The defendant told Piazza to give Deanna his best, but Piazza uttered an obscenity. A short while later, Piazza made an obscene gesture toward the defendant. The two then began arguing. Eventually, after Piazza pushed the defendant, the defendant hit him. He did not have anything in his hand when he threw the punch.\nDoctor Thomas Kron, a plastic surgeon, testified he treated Piazza\u2019s injuries. Piazza had great pain when he tried to open his mouth as well as numbness in his face. Dr. Kron found Piazza\u2019s left cheekbone was broken in at least three places. Additionally, the nerves were damaged by the bones being out of place. He performed reconstructive surgery by making three incisions and wiring the bones into position. During the surgery, he found a crack in the eye socket which required repair with a plastic material. The wire and plastic inserts are permanent. Piazza was out of work and in pain for six weeks following the incident.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated battery. The cause then proceeded to sentencing. According to the presentence report, the 26-year-old defendant had two previous convictions for burglary, one conviction for battery, and one conviction for theft. He was on probation when he committed the instant offense. At the time of sentencing, he faced a pending charge for driving while his license was revoked.\nThe report further indicated the defendant was skilled in carpentry and welding. Additionally, while serving a jail sentence, he had obtained a GED certificate.\nThe defendant\u2019s attorney stated that prior to the offense, the defendant had been employed at a salary of $350 a week. Although the defendant had lost his job as a result of the offense, he could return when his case was resolved. In his statement of allocution, the defendant admitted he had been wrong in punching Piazza.\nThe court found that because of the defendant\u2019s prior record, he was eligible for an extended term of up to 10 years\u2019 imprisonment. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, pars. 1005\u20145\u20143.2(b)(1), 1005\u20148\u20142(a)(5).) It then imposed an eight-year term of imprisonment.\nThe defendant argues on appeal that the court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. He contends the court failed to consider the fact he was intoxicated and in a heated argument when he committed the offense. He also claims the court failed to give proper weight to his rehabilitative potential.\nWe begin by noting that a proper sentence is based on many factors, including the circumstances of the offense. (People v. Saldivar (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 256, 497 N.E.2d 1138.) In considering those circumstances, the court may consider the degree of harm caused by the defendant, even where bodily harm is arguably implicit in the crime. (Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d at 269, 497 N.E.2d at 1143.) The defendant\u2019s prior criminal history is also relevant. (People v. Sowinski (1986), 148 Ill. App. 3d 231, 498 N.E.2d 650.) Since the trial court is in a better position to weigh the sentencing factors, we will not reverse its determination unless it clearly abused its discretion. People v. Cox (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 268, 412 N.E.2d 541.\nThe trial court\u2019s decision was supported by evidence that the defendant was the aggressor in the offense and by the serious harm he caused the victim. We also find strong support for the sentence in the defendant\u2019s previous criminal history and the fact he was on probation when the crime occurred. Although there was also mitigating evidence, we find after viewing the record as a whole that the court\u2019s determination was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the eight-year sentence.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHAASE and BARRY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McCUSKEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank W. Ralph, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Edward Burmila, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Judith Z. Kelly, 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. DAVID MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201489\u20140752\nOpinion filed May 23, 1991.\nFrank W. Ralph, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nEdward Burmila, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Judith Z. Kelly, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1078-01",
  "first_page_order": 1100,
  "last_page_order": 1103
}