{ "id": 5767641, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHAN D. AHLERS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ahlers", "decision_date": "2010-06-30", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201409\u20140026", "first_page": "726", "last_page": "735", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "402 Ill. App. 3d 726" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "806 N.E.2d 1233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 1121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3832570 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/346/1121-01" ] }, { "cite": "830 N.E.2d 467", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "474" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 Ill. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4060336 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/215/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 N.E.2d 1294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1299" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 Ill. App. 3d 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2944901 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "850" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/248/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "910" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 909174 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/169/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "902 N.E.2d 691", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Ill. 2d 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3619199 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "124" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/232/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "919 N.E.2d 1118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1120" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "396 Ill. App. 3d 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4293032 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/396/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "743 N.E.2d 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "539" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ill. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1096295 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/194/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "870 N.E.2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410-11" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 Ill. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5704197 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/225/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 N.E.2d 1144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1149" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3092094 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/91/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "497 N.E.2d 995", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "999" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 2d 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3172916 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/113/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "902 N.E.2d 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Ill. 2d 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3619347 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" }, { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/232/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "673 N.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 2d 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 223611 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/174/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "701 N.E.2d 1186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1189" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 Ill. App. 3d 791", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 221482 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/299/0791-01" ] }, { "cite": "802 N.E.2d 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" }, { "page": "338", "parenthetical": "holding that it is not sufficient to \"simply state that because sentencing affects the defendant's fundamental right to liberty, any error committed at that stage is reviewable as plain error\"" }, { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3738977 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" }, { "page": "311" }, { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/345/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "872 N.E.2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "373 Ill. App. 3d 1104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4270041 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1123" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/373/1104-01" ] }, { "cite": "686 N.E.2d 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 Ill. 2d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 317111 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "394" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/177/0389-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1031, "char_count": 22951, "ocr_confidence": 0.771, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.979177113359184e-08, "percentile": 0.5025806523855252 }, "sha256": "52c3fe3e4e6813a311f9a9822122fd0d635c68b6b90f054bdaef0c326b3f273c", "simhash": "1:fa32c58c3fe59567", "word_count": 3684 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:34.233681+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. NATHAN D. AHLERS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn May 2008, defendant, Nathan D. Ahlers, pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 16(b) (West 2008)) pursuant to an open plea. After accepting defendant\u2019s guilty plea, the trial court sentenced him to four years and six months in prison pursuant to the State\u2019s recommendation.\nDefendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him to 4V2 years in prison. Specifically, defendant contends that the court erred by considering (1) defendant\u2019s mental retardation as an aggravating factor, (2) unreliable nonstatutory factors in aggravation, and (3) information from the reviewing psychiatrist\u2019s evaluation that was obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. Because defendant has forfeited review of these issues, we affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nA. The State\u2019s Charge and Defendant\u2019s Initial Psychological Evaluation\nOn April 4, 2008, the State charged defendant with aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 16(b) (West 2008)), alleging that defendant had knowingly touched the penis of his minor brother, N.A., for the purpose of sexual gratification. On April 10, 2008, defendant filed a motion for psychological evaluation, which the trial court granted. The results of that psychological evaluation were, in part, as follows:\n\u201c[Defendant] is an 18[-]year-old male with significant cognitive impairment who is currently in *** [j]ail facing charges [that he sexually abused] his 16[-]year[-]old brother, who also is cognitively impaired. At the time of his arrest, [defendant] was serving probation for sexual[ly] abus[ing] the same sibling earlier this year [(Menard County case No. 08 \u2014 CM\u20143)]. He has been previously diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder.\n*** [Defendant\u2019s] behavior most likely reflects [his] impulse[-] dominated personality, and his limited capacity to delay gratification, rather than an intent to act out aggressively. Placing [defendant] in a facility with hardened criminals would likely result in a continuation of his victimization by others. However, he may lack the self[-] control to resist victimizing those younger or less capable then [szc] himself.\u201d\nB. Defendant\u2019s Guilty Plea and Fitness Evaluation In May 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated-criminal-sexual-abuse charge (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 16(b) (West 2008)) pursuant to an open plea \u2014 that is, defendant pleaded guilty without receiving any promises from the State. In August 2008, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that he (1) lacked an \u201cunderstanding of the meaning and impact of his guilty plea\u201d and (2) had cognitive-ability scores ranging from moderate to mild retardation. Following a September 2008 hearing, the trial court found that a bona fide doubt existed as to defendant\u2019s fitness and ordered a fitness examination.\nDr. Daniel J. Cuneo, a clinical psychologist, performed the fitness examination and reported, in part, the following findings to the trial court:\n\u201cAt the beginning of my interview with [defendant], I informed him of the limited confidentiality of my assessment as I would be sending a copy of my findings to *** his defense attorney!,] *** the State\u2019s Attorney!,) and *** the presiding judge. When asked if he understood the aforementioned information and if he wished to continue, [defendant] nodded yes. I then asked him to repeat back in his own words what he had just agreed to do and he was able to say that I was going to send a copy of my report to other people.\n^ ^ ^\nIt would be my opinion that [defendant\u2019s] mental illness (Adjustment Disorder with Anxious and Depressed Mood, Dysthymic Disorder, Rule Out Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Mild Mental Retardation) does not at the present time substantially impair his ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or his ability to assist in his own defense. *** [Defendant] could *** understand the concepts of plea bargaining and probation. *** [E]ven though his memory is impaired, he has sufficient memory to relate these things in his own personal manner. Therefore, it is my opinion that [defendant] is presently fit to stand trial.\nAt the same time, [defendant] is intellectually limited. His thinking is very concrete and vocabulary that of a ten-year-old. I would recommend that the vocabulary be kept simple. I would also recommend that periodic checks be made during the court proceedings to make sure that [defendant] understands what is happening. [Defendant] should be asked then to explain back in his own words what is happening and not simply answer yes or no that he comprehends. He does have the ability to comprehend the trial proceedings if these concepts are broken down into simpler terms.\u201d\nIn October 2008, the trial court accepted the parties\u2019 stipulation that defendant was fit in light of Cuneo\u2019s report. Thereafter, defendant withdrew his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.\nC. Defendant\u2019s Sentencing Hearing and the Trial Court\u2019s\nImposition of His Sentence\nFollowing defendant\u2019s December 2008 sentencing hearing, at which (1) defendant\u2019s father testified on defendant\u2019s behalf, (2) the trial court called an employee from the Central Illinois Services Access Group \u2014 which is a group home that provides service and maximizes independence for the disabled \u2014 to testify about security at its facility, (3) counsel presented argument, and (4) defendant spoke on his own behalf, the court sentenced defendant to 4V2 years in prison, explaining as follows:\n\u201c[T]he court has considered the presentence investigation report, has spent [a] considerable amount of time reading through all of the information that was provided here, the police reports, the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s referral letter, [and] the psychological evaluation\n[The psychological evaluation] dated *** April 26th of this year [and] the sex offender assessment *** would indicate this is one of these difficult cases where *** [the court does not] think there is any question that the offense was committed.\nThe real question is his ability to be rehabilitated. Whether he has impulse control, he has psychological factors [that] would allow rehabilitation, and where that rehabilitation should take place.\n[The court] read[s] from [the sex-offender assessment] that *** the conclusions drawn from the summary place him at a 26 percent chance [to reoffend], [which] is not defendant-]specific as [the court] read[s] the report.\nBut, 26 percent of all offenders who are in a similar situation or the same situation *** are expected to reoffend within five years, and that in the court\u2019s mind is a substantial risk to the public and places the public at risk wherever [defendant] is *** housed.\n[Looking] at some of the factors [from the sex-offender assessment], quite honestly, defendant, given his past behavior, his disability level, the problems that he has, he is probably not a particularly good candidate for rehabilitation. That in itself would tend to argue that in fact placement for [defendant] should be the Department of Corrections [(DOC)].\nOn the plus side, [defendant], I see a number of people in the front row here, and [defendant\u2019s] father has testified, and [the court has] no doubt that there is a strong support system here for *** defendant should [h]e choose to avail himself of the counseling.\nIt would seem to the court that it would he extremely inappropriate to sentence [defendant] to a situation where he would have in any way contact with his sibling. [The court does] note that *** [defendant\u2019s] grandparents have volunteered during the interim period to house him.\n[The court] assume[s] from that *** offer that, in fact, they would be willing to comply with any order which the court would have, as far as [defendant having] no contact with either sibling *** and a strong monitor of his actions.\n!\u00a1i $ $\n[Defendant], as [the court] weights] things in [its] own mind here, and the record does not reflect this, but [the court] is doing that. There are some lengthy pauses between the things that [the court has] said here. *** [The court has] to weigh [its] own [assessment of the] potential that you are going to reoffend, and [it] see[s] that it is a large potential. *** [The court does not] know what will happen.\nThis is not specific to you. Yet, in the same respect, what [the court has to] go by is *** the evaluation of the professionals and go by the history that you have, and that would seem to show that there is a longstanding series of events!.] [I]n particular, one where there was a probation at the beginning of this year, and *** the new offense occurred or was charged roughly three weeks after you were placed on probation for essentially the same thing, a misdemeanor version earlier this year.\nIt would seem to [the court] that, quite frankly, one of *** the things that you lack here is impulse control. [The court is] confident that what you tell [the court] *** is what you believe today, and that is that you will not reoffend, but what [the court] also ha[s] to take into consideration is how to protect the public. ***\nYet, in the same respect, [the court is] going to be placing you into a home, if [the court] follow[s] what your attorney has suggested, placing you into a home where there are people just as deserving of protection, and by placing you in that home, there will be skilled service providers there.\nYet, in the same respect, what little experience [the court] has had with others in a similar situation that is not a great deal of protection to the others that are there.\nBottom line is this, [defendant], as much as [the court] would like to see you get the help, [it] do[es not] think that the risk that is there to the public is one where [the court] can justify that by going along with *** sentencing you to probation.\n[The court] believe[s] that the only appropriate sentence is a sentence to [DOC]. [The court] will follow the recommendation of the State. That will be for a period of four and a half years. There will be a two-year mandatory supervised release.\u201d\nD. Defendant\u2019s Motion To Reconsider Sentence and the Trial\nCourt\u2019s Ruling on That Motion\nShortly after defendant\u2019s December 2008 sentencing hearing, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence. In support of his motion, defendant claimed that (1) his sentence was not imposed \u201caccording to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring [defendant] to useful citizenship\u201d; (2) the trial court failed to consider as mitigating factors (a) the fact that defendant was \u201cparticularly likely to comply with the terms of probation\u201d and (b) defendant\u2019s mental retardation; and (3) defendant\u2019s sentence was not in keeping with (a) \u201c[his] past history or criminality, mental history and capacity, and family situation\u201d and (b) the \u201calternatives available to the [c]ourt to assist *** [defendant in his rehabilitation.\u201d Following a January 2009 hearing, the court denied defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider sentence.\nThis appeal followed.\nII. DEFENDANT\u2019S CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A 472-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing a 472-year prison sentence. Specifically, defendant contends that the court erred by considering (1) his mental retardation as an aggravating factor, (2) unreliable nonstatutory factors in aggravation, and (3) information from the reviewing psychiatrist\u2019s evaluation that was obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. We conclude that defendant has forfeited review of these contentions.\nA. Forfeiture Under Section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections\nIn People v. Reed, 177 Ill. 2d 389, 394, 686 N.E.2d 584, 586 (1997), the supreme court first explained that section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) (West 1994)) requires a written postsentencing motion to \u201callow the trial court the opportunity to review a defendant\u2019s contention of sentencing error and save the delay and expense inherent in appeal if they are meritorious.\u201d In People v. Montgomery, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1104, 1123, 872 N.E.2d 403, 419 (2007), this court, citing its decision in People v. Rathbone, 345 Ill. App. 3d 305, 802 N.E.2d 333 (2003), reiterated that section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) of the Unified Code (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) (West 2004)) mandates that a defendant\u2019s challenge to any aspect of his sentence be made by a written motion filed within 30 days of the imposition of his sentence. Following the supreme court\u2019s holding in Reed, we concluded in Rathbone that strict enforcement of section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) is necessary to allow the trial court to review the precise claim of error so that it can either (1) correct its mistake or (2) explain its reasons for imposing the sentence it did. Specifically, we noted as follows:\n\u201c[The] defendant\u2019s claim is precisely the type of claim the forfeiture rule is intended to bar from review when not first considered by the trial court. Had [the] defendant raised th[e] issue in the trial court, that court could have answered the claim by either (1) acknowledging its mistake and correcting the sentence, or (2) explaining that the court did not improperly sentence [the] defendant ***. If the court did not change the sentence, then a record would have been made on the matter ***, avoiding the need for [the reviewing] court to speculate as to the basis for the trial court\u2019s sentence.\u201d Rathbone, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 310, 802 N.E.2d at 337.\nThe rationale from Rathbone \u2014 as it was in Montgomery \u2014 applies equally to this case. Here, defendant failed to raise the claims in his motion to reconsider sentence that he now posits on appeal. Specifically, defendant claimed that the trial court should reconsider the sentence it imposed because (1) his sentence was not imposed \u201caccording to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring [defendant] to useful citizenship\u201d; (2) it failed to consider (a) the fact that defendant was \u201cparticularly likely to comply with the terms of probation\u201d and (b) defendant\u2019s mental retardation as mitigating factors; and (3) defendant\u2019s sentence was not in keeping with (a) \u201c[his] past history or criminality, mental history and capacity, and family situation\u201d and (b) the \u201calternatives available to the [c]ourt to assist *** [defendant in his rehabilitation.\u201d These are not the claims he now posits on appeal, which are that the trial court improperly considered (1) his mental retardation as an aggravating factor, (2) unreliable nonstatutory factors in aggravation, and (3) information from the reviewing psychiatrist\u2019s evaluation that was obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. Accordingly, defendant has forfeited these arguments pursuant to section 5 \u2014 8\u2014 1(c) of the Unified Code.\nWe further conclude that Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (210 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) offers a second, and independent, reason to consider defendant\u2019s arguments forfeited.\nB. Forfeiture Under Supreme Court Rule 604(d)\nSupreme Court Rule 604(d), which governs appeals from judgments entered upon guilty pleas, provides, in pertinent part, that\n\u201cany issue not raised by the defendant in the motion to reconsider the sentence *** shall be deemed [forfeited].\u201d 210 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).\nIn People v. Williams, 299 Ill. App. 3d 791, 795, 701 N.E.2d 1186, 1189 (1998), this court noted the supreme court\u2019s rationale for enacting Rule 604(d) as follows:\n\u201cRule 604(d) is the supreme court\u2019s direct response to the large number of appeals in the early 1970s that flooded the appellate court. People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320, 329, 673 N.E.2d 244, 248 (1996). By promulgating this rule, the supreme court simply notified defendants that if they really claim to be aggrieved by some deficiency in the trial court proceedings during which they pleaded guilty, then they must first call the alleged deficiency to the trial court\u2019s attention, where relief could be granted. Otherwise, permitting such defendants to appeal would result *** in an unjustified waste of scarce judicial resources.\u201d\nHere, defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to an open plea, rendering Rule 604(d) applicable. Because, as previously discussed, defendant failed to raise the arguments in his motion to reconsider sentence that he now posits on appeal, we conclude that defendant has forfeited his claims under Rule 604(d) as well.\nC. The Plain-Error Doctrine and This Case\nDespite having forfeited his claims on multiple grounds, defendant contends that his procedural default may be excused by the plain-error doctrine of Supreme Court Rule 615(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)). We disagree.\nSupreme Court Rule 615(a) provides as follows:\n\u201cAny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.\u201d 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).\nIn People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 65, 902 N.E.2d 571, 580 (2008), the supreme court provided the following guidance concerning the circumstances in which the plain-error doctrine applies:\n\u201cThe doctrine serves as \u2018 \u201ca narrow and limited exception to the general [rule of procedural default].\u201d \u2019 People v. Szaho, 113 Ill. 2d 83, 94[, 497 N.E.2d 995, 999] (1986), quoting People v. Pastorino, 91 Ill. 2d 178, 188[, 435 N.E.2d 1144, 1149] (1982). This court will review unpreserved error when a clear and obvious error occurs and: (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant\u2019s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565[, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410-11] (2007); People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335[, 743 N.E.2d 521, 539] (2000).\u201d\n\u201c \u2018Under both prongs of the plain-error doctrine, the burden of persuasion remains with defendant.\u2019 \u201d People v. Wishard, 396 Ill. App. 3d 283, 286, 919 N.E.2d 1118, 1120 (2009), quoting People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124, 902 N.E.2d 691, 697 (2009). \u201cWhen a defendant fails to establish plain error, the result is that the \u2018procedural default must be honored.\u2019 \u201d Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at 65, 902 N.E.2d at 580-81, quoting People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17, 660 N.E.2d 901, 910 (1995).\nDefendant relies on the Second District\u2019s decision in People v. McCain, 248 Ill. App. 3d 844, 850, 617 N.E.2d 1294, 1299 (1993), for the proposition that the plain-error doctrine applies to this case because his challenges to his sentence \u201caffect[ ] [his] fundamental right to liberty.\u201d However, the plain-error doctrine is not a general savings clause, to be used as a means by which to preserve all errors affecting substantial rights that have not been brought to the trial court\u2019s attention. People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 177, 830 N.E.2d 467, 474 (2005). And we note that defendant\u2019s contention here is essentially the same contention this court rejected in Rathbone. Rathbone, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 311, 802 N.E.2d at 338 (holding that it is not sufficient to \u201csimply state that because sentencing affects the defendant\u2019s fundamental right to liberty, any error committed at that stage is reviewable as plain error\u201d). Nonetheless, as previously stated, sentencing errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewable as plain error if (1) the evidence was closely balanced or (2) the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing. Rathbone, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 312, 802 N.E.2d at 339.\nIn this case, defendant does not specifically assert that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced or (2) any of the alleged errors deprived him of a fair sentencing hearing. However, defendant does contend that the trial court committed error when it considered certain improper information in aggravation. Thus, although defendant never specifically asserts as much, for purposes of plain-error review, he appears to be challenging the fairness of his sentencing hearing. Assuming arguendo that the trial court erred by considering improper information in aggravation, we conclude that defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing was not fundamentally unfair. Therefore, we do not deem defendant\u2019s claims sufficient to warrant plain-error review.\nIn so concluding, we note that the crime defendant pleaded guilty to carried a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum sentence of seven years in prison (see 720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 16(g) (West 2008) (designating aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12\u2014 16(b) (West 2008)) a Class 2 felony)). Thus, defendant\u2019s 4V2-year prison sentence was a mid-range sentence. The record shows that the State recommended the 41/a-year sentence after explaining how it had carefully considered the circumstances in this case. Indeed, the State (1) did not pursue a violation-of-probation charge against defendant and (2) recommended the mid-range sentence after balancing the fact that defendant (a) had recently committed the same crime against the same victim and (b) was dealing with a cognitive disability. Moreover, the record from the sentencing hearing also shows that the trial court painstakingly considered all the factors related to (1) defendant\u2019s condition, (2) the nature of the offense, and (3) sentencing alternatives before imposing the sentence recommended by the State. Accordingly, we do not view any alleged errors in defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing as having jeopardized the integrity or reputation of the judicial process.\nIn closing, we also note that defendant asserts as a last resort that we should view his trial counsel\u2019s failure to preserve these issues as ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that this court has outlined in People v. Durgan, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1121, 806 N.E.2d 1233 (2004), we decline to address this claim. In so doing, we invite defendant to pursue his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 through 122 \u2014 8 (West 2008)), where a complete record can be made regarding the circumstances of his counsel\u2019s alleged ineffectiveness.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment. As part of our judgment, we award the State its $50 statutory assessment as costs of this appeal.\nAffirmed.\nMYERSCOUGH, RJ., and McCULLOUGH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier, Gary R. Peterson, and Nancy L. Vincent, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Kenneth R. Baumgarten, State\u2019s Attorney, of Petersburg (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Anastacia R. Brooks, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Proseuctor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHAN D. AHLERS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201409\u20140026\nOpinion filed June 30, 2010.\nMichael J. Pelletier, Gary R. Peterson, and Nancy L. Vincent, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nKenneth R. Baumgarten, State\u2019s Attorney, of Petersburg (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Anastacia R. Brooks, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Proseuctor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0726-01", "first_page_order": 744, "last_page_order": 753 }