{
  "id": 5374839,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON MARGENTINA, a/k/a Jason Erickson, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Margentina",
  "decision_date": "1994-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201492\u20140753",
  "first_page": "247",
  "last_page": "250",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 Ill. App. 3d 247"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "387 N.E.2d 1061",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3239008
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/69/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "475 N.E.2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3439482
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/131/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "612 N.E.2d 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5108145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/243/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "554 N.E.2d 1040",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. App. 3d 851",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2488644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/196/0851-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 538,
    "char_count": 8129,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.171986877935658e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5089122956589361
    },
    "sha256": "581199aba01909a5401a8974d2f19ec6fef013828eacef8dad4d8e24edec9905",
    "simhash": "1:a8483568760a0670",
    "word_count": 1346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:20.371410+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. JASON MARGENTINA, a/k/a Jason Erickson, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE SLATER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Jason Margentina, a/k/a Jason Erickson, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 50 years\u2019 imprisonment. He appeals the length of his sentence.\nAt trial, the evidence established that the 18-year-old defendant lived with Robert Margentina, his stepfather, and George Holloway, the 36-year-old victim, for approximately three to four weeks before the murder occurred. During the defendant\u2019s stay, tension existed between the defendant and Holloway, primarily due to Holloway\u2019s abuse of Robert Margentina\u2019s dog, Roxy.\nThe defendant testified that on March 16, 1992, he was at home when Holloway returned from work at 4 p.m. Holloway left the house shortly thereafter and returned about 8 p.m. When he returned home, he was intoxicated and began to abuse the dog. When the dog would not sit on the carpeting in a certain area, Holloway would hit it. After Holloway ignored the defendant\u2019s requests to stop hitting the dog, the defendant became upset and went outside to have a cigarette and calm down. Holloway then went into the bathroom to ingest some cocaine, and the dog came over near the defendant. When Holloway came out of the bathroom, he was upset because the dog was off the carpeting. After he hit the dog again, he sat down on the love seat and watched television with the defendant. Holloway then made a derogatory comment about his former girlfriend whom the defendant had also dated.\nThe defendant said that when Holloway went into the bathroom again, the defendant got a gun out of the entertainment center cabinet and placed it on the couch next to him. He also placed a towel over the gun so that Holloway could not see it. When Holloway came out of the bathroom, he sat back down on the couch, gave the defendant a dirty look, and turned back towards the television. The defendant then took the gun out from under the towel and shot Holloway in the head twice. He next placed a garbage bag over the victim\u2019s head and bound his arms and feet with duct tape. He took Holloway\u2019s money from his wallet and wrote his stepfather a note saying, \"Dad, I\u2019m sorry, I just couldn\u2019t take it anymore.\u201d He then hitchhiked to a motel in Manteno, Illinois. At the close of evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder.\nThe presentence report showed that the defendant had an abusive childhood. His mother was an alcoholic and he had only seen his natural father three times in his life. According to the report, his mother once broke his nose, and he once witnessed his mother stab Robert Margentina. Robert was a drug user who had routinely injected himself with drugs in front of the defendant. The defendant was fairly gifted intellectually, but his emotional problems had prevented him from doing well in school. Additionally, he had been admitted to hospitals twice in the past, once for depression and once for self-inflicted lacerations to both arms. Further, he had prior juvenile convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, criminal damage to property, and aggravated assault.\nAt the sentencing hearing, Laura Stock, a juvenile probation officer, testified that she monitored the defendant\u2019s probation from May of 1990 until May of 1991. She had a total of 16 interviews with him. In her opinion, the defendant was unusually cooperative and responsible. She felt that he was a very intelligent young man who had a very cruel life and asked the court to show him mercy in sentencing.\nRobert Margentina testified that the defendant\u2019s home life was very unstable. He lived with the defendant and his mother until the defendant was around seven years old. Later, the defendant lived with a number of different individuals, including himself and Holloway, for short periods of time. He had approximately five or six different homes in 18 years. For about a year to 18 months before the shooting, the defendant lived with Robert and Holloway. Holloway repeatedly harassed the defendant, threatening to beat him up. Holloway hated the defendant because he thought the defendant was sleeping with his girlfriend. Holloway was violent when he was using cocaine and alcohol, which was often. The defendant later briefly moved out of Robert\u2019s house and lived with his aunt, but he returned to live with Robert and Holloway a few weeks before the shooting. Robert felt that the defendant was an affectionate person who loved animals but never received much love from anyone else.\nSheri Nick, the defendant\u2019s mother, testified that her son\u2019s upbringing was chaotic. She was an alcoholic, and Robert drank and abused drugs. Between 1979 and 1987 she and the defendant had lived in 10 different places. Based on the way he was raised, she expected him to be an alcoholic and a drug abuser, but he was neither.\nAfter hearing the testimony offered by both the defendant and the State, including Holloway\u2019s family\u2019s statements, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to 50 years\u2019 imprisonment.\nOn appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to 50 years\u2019 imprisonment when it failed to weigh such mitigating factors as the defendant\u2019s youth, background and potential for rehabilitation. We agree.\nFollowing a conviction for first degree murder, a defendant may be sentenced to a term of not less than 20 years and not more than 60 years. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005\u20148\u20141(a)(1)(a).) In making the sentencing decision, \"[a]ll penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.\u201d Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a711.\nA trial court\u2019s sentencing decision may not be altered on review unless the trial court abused its discretion; in other words, if the sentence diverges from the purpose and spirit of the law. (People v. Williams (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 851, 554 N.E.2d 1040.) However, an abuse of discretion may be found even when a sentence is within the statutory limitations, particularly where the defendant is young and has rehabilitative potential. (See People v. Brown (1993), 243 Ill. App. 3d 170, 612 N.E.2d 14 (20-year-old defendant\u2019s 45-year sentence for first degree murder reduced to 30 years where the defendant\u2019s age and lack of a criminal record were not properly considered); People v. Steffens (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 141, 475 N.E.2d 606 (16-year-old defendant\u2019s 30-year sentence for first degree murder reduced to 20 years when reviewing court found his rehabilitative potential not given adequate consideration based upon his age and lack of a significant criminal record).) In addition, a defendant\u2019s sentence may be reduced on the basis of rehabilitative potential where the defendant came from a poor social environment. (People v. Kosanovich (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 748, 387 N.E.2d 1061.) Finally, the fact that the defendant acted under strong provocation may be considered in mitigation. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005\u20145\u20143.1(a)(3).\nWe find that the trial court did not give sufficient consideration to the mitigating evidence. The record shows that the defendant had been raised in an environment that can only be described as terrible. He had been provoked by the victim\u2019s harassing conduct, and, like the defendant in Steffens, was still a teenager at the time of the offense. For these reasons, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant to a term that was over twice the minimum sentence.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nBARRY and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE SLATER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Peter A. Carusona, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "James Glasgow, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, 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. JASON MARGENTINA, a/k/a Jason Erickson, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201492\u20140753\nOpinion filed May 6, 1994.\nPeter A. Carusona, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nJames Glasgow, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0247-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 268
}