People v. Travis

NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 240583 Decision filed 07/01/26. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-0583 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for IN THE Rehearing or the disposition of the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Williamson County. ) v. ) No. 20-CF-278 ) DARIO N. TRAVIS, ) Honorable ) Michelle M. Schafer, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Cates and Justice Boie ∗ concurred in the judgment. OPINION ¶1 Defendant, Dario N. Travis, pled guilty to the offense of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2022)), and the Williamson County circuit court sentenced him to 23 years in prison, followed by 3 years of mandatory supervised release (MSR). Defendant appeals, arguing his sentence is excessive and grossly disparate in comparison to the 11-year sentence received by his codefendant, Demetrius J. Hernandez. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 On June 9, 2020, the State charged defendant by three-count information with attempted murder (count I) (id. §§ 8-4(a), 9-1(a)(1)), a Class X felony; armed robbery (count II) (id. § 18- * Justice Moore was originally assigned to the panel. Following Justice Moore’s retirement, Justice Boie was substituted on the panel and has read the briefs and listened to oral argument. 1 2(a)(4)), a Class X felony; and aggravated battery (count III) (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)), a Class X felony, premised on defendant knowingly discharging a firearm causing great bodily harm to the victim, Robert Leeman. The State alleged that defendant performed a substantial step toward the commission of murder in that defendant shot Leeman in the head with a firearm. The State also alleged that defendant took property ($2,500 cash) from Leeman’s presence by the use of force, or by threatening the imminent use of force, at which time defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm to Leeman by personally discharging a firearm at the head of Leeman. ¶4 The State attached an affidavit for probable cause—dated June 8, 2020, and written by Detective Carl Eggemeyer—wherein Detective Eggemeyer stated that on June 6, 2020, Leeman invited defendant to his residence to purchase cannabis wax. Defendant’s cousin and codefendant, Hernandez, accompanied defendant to Leeman’s residence. Upon their arrival, defendant and Hernandez followed Leeman and his girlfriend, Haley Popek, to Leeman’s northwest bedroom, where Leeman weighed and separated cannabis wax to complete the narcotics sale. According to statements given by Leeman, Popek, and defendant, Hernandez then produced a black semi- automatic handgun with an extended magazine and mounted rail light. Hernandez then closed the bedroom door to keep all of the occupants inside of the bedroom. Leeman and Popek demanded that defendant and Hernandez leave, while defendant attempted to keep Popek from intervening. Hernandez then demanded that Leeman “ ‘give me all you got.’ ” Leeman, fearing for his life, attempted to take the handgun from Hernandez, but Hernandez struck Leeman with the weapon. The affidavit went on to state that while striking Leeman with the pistol, Leeman went to the floor. While Leeman was on the floor, Hernandez 1 stole approximately $2,500 in cash from Leeman’s 1 Detective Eggemeyer later testified that defendant, not Hernandez, opened and searched Leeman’s drawers for money. 2 dresser drawer. Hernandez used his shirt to wipe off the bedroom handle in an attempt to destroy DNA or latent prints left behind. Hernandez then fired his weapon at Leeman, striking Leeman in the front left temporal area of his head. Defendant and Hernandez fled the scene on foot. Shortly thereafter, paramedics transported Leeman via helicopter to Memorial Hospital of Carbondale. Detective Eggemeyer obtained an audio recorded interview with Leeman. At that time, Leeman informed Detective Eggemeyer that defendant and his cousin arrived at Leeman’s house to buy drugs. Leeman stated that Hernandez “battered” him, wiped off the bedroom door handle with his shirt, and then shot Leeman in the head before fleeing Leeman’s home. The affidavit further indicated that a red blood-like substance was located on clothing in Leeman’s closet. There was also a red blood-like substance trailing from Leeman’s bedroom to the south entrance door of the residence and then to the driveway of Leeman’s residence. ¶5 Detective Eggemeyer also indicated that he obtained a recorded statement from Popek, who corroborated Leeman’s recollection of events. Popek also “positively identified [defendant] as the suspect who did not produce the firearm.” She stated that she yelled at defendant and Hernandez to leave because a child was present in the house. The affidavit further averred that on June 7, 2020, police apprehended defendant and took him into custody, at which time, defendant gave a custodial interview. According to the affidavit, defendant identified Hernandez as his cousin that he brought to the narcotics transaction. Defendant provided written consent to search his cell phone. The phone logs obtained showed numerous calls to and from “Jesse,” immediately after the reported time of the shooting. Defendant told Detective Eggemeyer that Jesse was the nickname for Hernandez. Finally, Detective Eggemeyer’s affidavit stated that defendant admitted that Hernandez’s girlfriend, Lauren,” picked up both he and Hernandez following the incident at Leeman’s home. This completed the factual information in the Eggemeyer affidavit. 3 ¶6 On July 30, 2020, the circuit court held defendant’s preliminary hearing and arraignment. The State clarified that it would proceed on count III under the theory of accountability on the charge of aggravated battery. At the hearing, Detective Eggemeyer testified that defendant initiated contact with Leeman to purchase drugs and brought his cousin with him to Leeman’s house. Detective Eggemeyer also testified that defendant, not Hernandez, “riffled though [Leeman’s] drawer,” while Hernandez pointed his gun at Leeman. Detective Eggemeyer indicated that Popek’s statement had confirmed that defendant searched Leeman’s drawer, and defendant took the money with him when the men fled the scene. Popek also informed Detective Eggemeyer that Leeman did not provoke Hernandez to pull out his gun. Popek provided facts similar to those given by Leeman. Detective Eggemeyer also testified to the discovery of the gun and other items at the defendant’s home. ¶7 Following defendant’s arrest, Detective Eggemeyer interviewed defendant, who gave a statement to Detective Eggemeyer. Defendant admitted that he arranged for the drug purchase and that he took Hernandez with him. Defendant also informed Detective Eggemeyer that he knew Hernandez had a firearm and also explained that Hernandez had ordered the firearm parts off the Internet and Hernandez had assembled the firearm himself. Eggemeyer offered additional facts from defendant’s statement that were consistent with the facts given by the other witnesses, although defendant denied going through the dresser to take money. Following the hearing, the court found probable cause existed to detain defendant on the charges of attempted murder (count I) and aggravated battery (count III). The court did not find probable cause as to count II, the armed robbery allegation. On May 11, 2021, defendant posted bond after the court reduced his bond following a hearing on April 16, 2021. 4 ¶8 On February 2, 2022, Hernandez, who was 28 years old at the time, entered into a negotiated plea to the offense of aggravated battery with a firearm. Hernandez’s defense counsel informed the circuit court that Hernandez was recently sentenced to 10 years on the offense of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) causing death (Case No. 19-CF-1046) in St. Clair County, Illinois. The parties requested that the court impose a sentence on the offense of aggravated battery with a firearm to run concurrently with the DUI case (Case No. 19-CF-1046). After considering the factual basis and Hernandez’s limited criminal history, the court sentenced Hernandez to 11 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), to run concurrently with Hernandez’s aggravated DUI conviction and sentence. ¶9 Approximately one year later, on February 24, 2023, defendant pled guilty in an open plea to aggravated battery based on the theory of accountability. 2 The circuit court admonished defendant that the offense of aggravated battery carried a possible sentencing range of 6 to 30 years in prison, and defendant stated that he wished to plead guilty. The State then provided a factual basis, wherein the State indicated that Leeman would testify that Hernandez shot him, and the evidence would show that defendant, based on the theory of accountability, participated in Hernandez’s shooting of Leeman. Following the State’s factual basis, the court accepted defendant’s plea of guilty as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. ¶ 10 On June 8, 2023, the circuit court held defendant’s sentencing hearing. From the outset, the State clarified that Hernandez, not defendant, “actually pulled the trigger. *** I just wanted to let the Court know that that’s something to consider as well.” The court responded that it would 2 In exchange for his guilty plea, the State dismissed the remaining count of attempted murder against defendant in this case and the following pending charges against defendant: (1) unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, a Class 3 felony (Case No. 19-CF-170); (2) theft, a Class 3 felony (Case No. 19-CF-304); (3) mob action, a Class 4 felony (Case No. 19-CF-377); (4) retail theft, a Class 3 felony (Case No. 21-CF-559); (5) criminal damage to property, a Class 4 felony (Case No. 23-CF-78); and (6) two unidentified traffic infractions (19-TR-4957; 20-TR-2518). 5 consider that information. Defense counsel then followed up by introducing several exhibits. The first two were the charge against Hernandez, with Detective Eggemeyer’s affidavit attached, and the plea of guilty by Hernandez. Defense counsel asked to have these incorporated into defendant’s presentence investigation (PSI). Defense counsel argued these were relevant, as the affidavit of probable cause written by Detective Eggemeyer was the same affidavit for both defendant and Hernandez. Defense counsel further stated that, although Hernandez and defendant were not technically codefendants, the same judge in defendant’s case had sentenced Hernandez. The court allowed these two exhibits to be incorporated into the PSI. Defense counsel also requested that the court consider Hernandez’s sentencing order, as well as the “Official Statement of State’s Attorney and Trial Judge.” ¶ 11 The State responded to the last two exhibits, arguing that Hernandez’s judgment and sentence were irrelevant. The circuit court agreed with the State. Defense counsel responded that “when [he] looked up this case *** on Judici, it indicates that it was Your Honor who took the plea for Demetrius Hernandez.” The circuit court stated that it would examine the Hernandez case. The following colloquy took place: “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: *** [W]e would just argue respectfully that we believe it is relevant to the sentence in this case because it’s the exact same incident, it’s the exact same charge, it’s the exact same crime. It’s *** the same incident with the same victim. It’s the same act. And so our argument would be that, of course, it would be relevant. It’s *** the exact same act with the same victim. [Defendant] is charged and pled guilty under a theory of accountability, but it’s actually the actions of Demetrius Hernandez, although he’s legally responsible for those actions, that it would be relevant. It’s hard to imagine something that could be more relevant. 6  *** THE COURT: What I don’t know as I sit here at this point, without examining the Hernandez case in more detail, is whether it was a negotiated sentence, whether it was a sentence that was imposed strictly from a hearing as we’re having today, or whether there was some bargain, per se, involved in what that sentence was. That’s my concern. [THE STATE]: I can answer that question. It was the result of a negotiation. That was not an open plea [in Hernandez’s case]. THE COURT: So I think that sheds a different light on it, if you will. I understand the circumstances arise out of the same incident, but knowing there was some form of negotiation that took place—obviously, I’ve heard how many years. You’ve told me, you know. The bell’s rung. But I still don’t see that that is admissible as part of this record given that it was a negotiated sentence.” The court indicated that it would examine the probable cause affidavit written by Detective Eggemeyer with the understanding that defendant pled guilty under a theory of accountability. ¶ 12 Following argument by the parties, the State called Detective Eggemeyer to testify. Detective Eggemeyer testified consistently with his probable cause affidavit and his prior testimony at defendant’s preliminary hearing. Detective Eggemeyer also testified that Leeman attempted to take the firearm from Hernandez and exit his bedroom. Leeman’s attempts failed, and Hernandez struck Leeman in the head with the gun multiple times. Before defendant and Hernandez left the bedroom, Hernandez wiped off the bedroom door handle with his shirt and fired a shot at Leeman, striking Leeman in the head. Defendant and Hernandez left Leeman’s home and fled to a nearby town. Defendant did not stop to render aid to Leeman. Detective Eggemeyer also testified that Leeman underwent extensive brain or head surgery following the shooting. 7 ¶ 13 The State requested, without objection by defense counsel, that the circuit court take judicial notice of a plenary order of protection entered against defendant by Colbie Ridgway, the mother of defendant’s oldest children (Case No. 23-OP-124). The State also requested to introduce, without objection, a photograph of Leeman’s head following surgery. The State also informed the court that Leeman wished to read his victim impact statement before the court and that this statement was different than the statement attached to defendant’s PSI. Defense counsel objected, requesting that the court not allow Leeman two victim impact statements. The court noted on the record that it would allow Leeman to “say whatever he needs to on the record” but would not admit his additional statement into evidence. The court then deferred the reading of the victim impact statement and allowed defense counsel to call a witness. ¶ 14 Defense counsel then called Esperanza Rodgers, defendant’s mother, to testify in mitigation. Rodgers testified that defendant’s father had been absent his entire life. Rodgers testified that defendant changed his life after posting bond in the instant case, as evidenced by defendant obtaining employment, renting an apartment, purchasing a vehicle, and caring for his children. Defendant had two children, an 11-month-old daughter and an 8-month-old son from two women, as well as expecting a third child, a son, in September 2023, with another woman whom defendant dated. Rodgers testified that defendant lived with his daughter for the first six months of her life. Following the filing of the order of protection by Ridgway, defendant’s daughter’s mother, defendant saw his daughter only every other weekend. Rodgers testified that defendant provided financial support for his daughter; however, she indicated that no formal child support or visitation orders existed because “[t]here was no need,” provided defendant and Ridgway co- parented well together. Although the PSI indicated that defendant did not pay child support, Rodgers stated that defendant was not court ordered to do so. Rodgers also testified that defendant 8 had a relationship with his infant son “as much as [the] mom w[ould] allow.” Rodgers clarified that defendant’s son’s mother did not allow defendant to see his son. Despite this, Rodgers confirmed that defendant did not petition the court to set up visitation with his son. Rodgers testified that defendant’s absence would impact his three minor children. ¶ 15 Rodgers also testified that defendant looked up to his older cousin, Hernandez, stating that defendant “wanted to be a lot like” Hernandez and “used to emulate him ‘cause [sic] he was so much older and *** cooler ***.” Rodgers believed Hernandez had much influence over defendant, given Hernandez was older than defendant, and defendant viewed him like an older brother. On cross-examination, Rodgers confirmed that defendant had supervised visits with his infant daughter as a result of the order of protection. No additional witnesses were called by the defendant. ¶ 16 Leeman next offered his victim impact statement. Leeman stated that his life since the shooting incident had been “nothing short of an absolute nightmare.” Leeman indicated that he felt disconnected since the incident, sharing that he could not “trust anyone anymore,” including defendant, who he called a friend before the incident. He stated that he suffered from post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and dissociation following the shooting. Referring to defendant as a “sociopath,” Leeman stated his belief that defendant “preyed on [him] because, evidently, [he] was an easy target, one that never had [his] guard up, so [he] was chosen.” Leeman stated that defendant knew Leeman recently sold a truck and did not have a weapon at his house. Leeman continued to state the following: “Immediately, upon entering my bedroom, [defendant] and his cousin began telling me that I will be killed if I don’t cooperate and to give them everything that I have. He pointed the gun at my girlfriend and said that he would kill her, too. I knew that there were 9  other people in the house, which at the time consisted of my mom, my nephew, and my mom’s boyfriend. *** I didn’t know if he knew that, though, so I froze with fear. I had never expected or experienced anything like that. I immediately went into shock. I gave them the money, but that didn’t make them stop or leave. There was never a moment when they were threatening me where I thought that I would live. *** They kept pistol-whipping me while telling me to get ready for the trigger pull. I could tell that they were getting off to it. They love it because they felt so powerful. Eventually ***, [defendant’s] cousin[,] Demetrius had the gun—held the gun to my head and pulled the trigger about two inches from my temple. I was on the floor on my knees, completely helpless, begging for my life. I wasn’t reaching for the gun. I was trying to protect myself. They ran out of the house while I convulsed, seized, and began bleeding out. They got into a getaway vehicle that was parked a couple blocks away and was captured on my neighbors’ cameras.” Leeman also stated that “while [he] was in the ICU fighting for [his] life,” defendant was seen at a paintball field with pockets full of Leeman’s “hard-earned cash.” Leeman stated that he suffered from “immeasurable” paranoia and terror following the incident and that defendant, while on bond, downplayed the situation to people, calling Leeman “crazy.” Leeman stated that he endured a 13- hour brain operation to insert a titanium plate to replace one-fifth of his skull. As a result of extensive medical procedures, he incurred substantial medical debt. ¶ 17 Following Leeman’s victim impact statement, the State acknowledged that defendant did not pull the trigger; however, the State asserted that defendant brought Hernandez with him to Leeman’s house. The State argued that Hernandez would not have been at Leeman’s house if not for defendant’s actions. The State continued to argue that Leeman trusted defendant and the two men were friends prior to the incident at issue. The State, arguing that defendant had a low potential 10 for rehabilitation, asserted that defendant was a juvenile offender and, while on bond in the instant case, “ha[d] gotten three different women pregnant” and “ha[d]n’t managed to stay completely out of trouble, has had some run-ins.” The State requested the circuit court sentence defendant to 30 years in prison. ¶ 18 In response, defense counsel argued several statutory factors in mitigation, including that defendant’s criminal conduct was induced or facilitated by someone other than defendant. Defense counsel argued that defendant was less culpable than Hernandez “because [defendant] is not the person who pulled the trigger.” Defense counsel argued that no evidence showed defendant knew Hernandez had a gun when defendant took Hernandez with him to purchase drugs. Defense counsel next argued that defendant’s criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to reoccur. In support, defense counsel highlighted that defendant spent 337 days in custody before he posted bond. Once released, he worked full-time, took care of his two infant children, and was expecting the birth of his third child. Defense counsel argued that defendant, who was 20 years old at the time of the incident, had a different attitude now, as demonstrated by Rodgers’s testimony. In highlighting that the law with respect to young adults was evolving, defense counsel requested the court consider defendant’s age at the time of the shooting, stating defendant was “an immature 20-year-old.” Moreover, defense counsel argued that Rodgers’s testimony demonstrated that defendant looked up to his older cousin. ¶ 19 Next, defense counsel acknowledged that defendant “had some incidents” since the instant offense, including criminal damage to property and an order of protection against him. However, according to defense counsel, defendant’s criminal history did not include violent crimes or show “incorrigibility or depravity.” Defense counsel requested that the circuit court consider defendant’s actions after police arrested him, including that defendant identified Hernandez as his cousin, gave 11 police permission to search his phone, and identified calls in his phone log between he and Hernandez. Defense counsel also argued that defendant’s willingness to speak with police and identify Hernandez following the shooting indicated that defendant was unlikely to commit another crime. Defense counsel requested the circuit court sentence defendant to six years in prison. ¶ 20 Following defense counsel’s argument, defendant offered a statement in allocution. Defendant stated that he was not a violent person and wished to go home to see his children. Defendant also stated that he took responsibility for his actions, indicating that “[he] could have provided some type of aid to [Leeman] ***, and [he] didn’t because [he] was scared and [he] didn’t want to get anybody in trouble, like as far as my family.” ¶ 21 Prior to imposing defendant’s sentence, the circuit court indicated that it considered the factors in aggravation and mitigation, the recent 2023 plenary order of protection against defendant, witness testimony, Leeman’s victim impact statement provided in open court, defendant’s statement in allocution, and the PSI report. The court noted that defendant had committed the offense of residential burglary when he was 16 years old. Initially, a court granted defendant probation; however, he was transferred to a juvenile correctional facility in Indiana at the age of 17 for approximately 9 months following the revocation of his probation for “some type of theft.” 3 The court then stated that defendant committed the offense at issue roughly a year and a half after his release from the juvenile correctional facility in Indiana. ¶ 22 Next, the circuit court found it “relevant and concerning” that defendant grew up without a father himself. The court indicated that the findings in the plenary order of protection did not The circuit court noted that defendant’s probation was transferred to Indiana following Rodgers’s 3 move to Indiana. 12 support Rodgers’s testimony that defendant had changed his life since posting bond. Rather, the court noted that the findings set forth in the order of protection paints a picture of someone who is hostile “when he doesn’t get his way.” The court read several allegations contained in the order of protection, including that defendant threatened Ridgway’s grandparents and family members, and defendant placed Ridgway’s clothes in a toilet when she did not leave the home quickly enough. The court expressed its concern regarding the allegations against defendant. As it related to defendant’s children and his role as a father, the court, again, referenced the order of protection, stating that defendant, on several instances, “attempt[ed] to take the child away, take the phone from the mother so that she cannot find his whereabouts.” Although the court expressed devastation that defendant’s children would lack a father figure, the court expressed serious concerns whether defendant could be a positive role model for his children. The court also stated that it did not believe defendant’s actions were induced by Hernandez. Rather, the court found it important that defendant initiated contact with Leeman to purchase cannabis. ¶ 23 With regard to the factors in aggravation, the circuit court found that defendant’s conduct caused serious harm to Leeman and that defendant had a history of prior delinquency both as a juvenile and then a year and half later as an adult in the instant case. The court stated that the “evidence prior to this incident, this incident, and most recently with this order of protection do not paint th[e] picture” of a man who is “going to do better [and] trying to do better.” As such, the court indicated that the imposition of a sentence necessary to deter others was needed. The court acknowledged that defendant “may have been an immature 20-year-old.” However, the court “struggle[d] *** read[ing] the 100-page” PSI “to find that as a child *** his mother [tried] to get him the treatment he needed. There was a cry for help several times from the age of 11.” The court also stated that it did not take the plea in Hernandez’s case and did not consider any information, 13 evidence, or criminal history as to why Hernandez was offered a negotiated plea. The court subsequently sentenced defendant to 23 years in IDOC, to be served at 85%, followed by 3 years of MSR. ¶ 24 On July 7, 2023, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant argued that his 23-year prison sentence was arbitrarily and unreasonably disparate to Hernandez’s 11-year prison sentence. Defendant argued that Hernandez was the principal actor, was more culpable than defendant for Leeman’s injuries, and had a more significant criminal history than defendant, including causing the death of another in an aggravated DUI offense. Defendant argued that it was shocking that “the gunman, the person who pulled the trigger and shot Robert Leeman in the head, will serve less than half the amount of time that [defendant] must serve under his sentence.” Next, defendant argued that the circuit court acted in error when it stated on the record at defendant’s sentencing hearing that it did not take Hernandez’s negotiated plea. In support of his argument, defendant attached the transcript of Hernandez’s February 2, 2022, negotiated plea hearing and argued that the same judge had presided over Hernandez’s plea. Defendant also argued that the court failed to properly consider and give weight to the factors in mitigation, while improperly considering or giving undue weight to the factors in aggravation. Lastly, defendant asserted that he realized, after his sentencing hearing, that he committed a theft of an iPhone that belonged to the son of the judge in the circuit court who was imposing the sentence. According to the defendant, this incident occurred when the defendant was in the eighth grade. As such, he alleged that the judge was biased against, or had a conflict of interest with, defendant, which influenced her imposition of defendant’s sentence. ¶ 25 On July 12, 2023, defendant filed a motion for substitution of judge. Defendant asserted therein that he was caught and suspended from eighth grade after he stole the iPhone that belonged 14 to the judge’s son. Defendant attached an affidavit attesting to the theft incident several years before. ¶ 26 On July 17, 2023, the judge in the circuit court filed an affidavit attesting that, following defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence and for substitution of judge, which alleged defendant’s theft of the cell phone that belonged to the judge’s son that allegedly occurred when defendant was in the eighth grade, the judge questioned her husband and son and neither individual recalled the alleged event. The affidavit averred that the cell phone at issue went missing while the judge’s son was at a summer basketball practice years before. The judge further stated, however, that the basketball coach notified the dean of students at Marion High School and the cell phone was returned the next day. “All details regarding where the phone was located or who had the phone were not disclosed to our family.” The judge went on to state that defendant’s PSI indicated that he attended Herrin High School and the Learning Center in Marion, Illinois, which did not lead the judge to conclude that defendant attended Marion Unit 2 School District. The judge’s affidavit further attested that, “[p]rior to assignment of this case, I ha[d] no memory or recollection of the Defendant. I had never seen him before, and I had no knowledge that he may have stolen my son’s cell phone.” ¶ 27 On August 9, 2023, defendant’s case was reassigned to a different judge for a hearing on defendant’s motion for substitution of judge. Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 2023, a hearing was held on defendant’s motion, wherein defense counsel made extensive argument consistent with defendant’s motion. Following argument by the parties, the judge assigned to hear the defendant’s motion denied defendant’s motion for substitution of judge. ¶ 28 On February 7, 2024, defendant filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant, again, argued that his 23-year prison sentence was arbitrarily and 15 unreasonably disparate to the 11-year sentence received by Hernandez. Defendant contended that the disparity in sentences was not justified by the difference in pleas entered by defendant and Hernandez, given that Hernandez was more culpable and had a more serious criminal history. ¶ 29 On February 27, 2024, the State filed an objection to defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence. The State asserted that, although Hernandez shot Leeman, “the case against [Hernandez] was not as strong because it would have required the testimony of this defendant to prove the identity of the co-defendant at trial.” In asserting defendant was not similarly situated to Hernandez, the State argued the following: “7. Mr. Leeman was not going to be able to testify at the scheduled trial against Mr. Hernandez because of post-traumatic stress related to this incident. 8. Other witnesses against Mr. Hernandez weren’t located prior to his scheduled trial. 9. After consultation with Mr. Leeman’s mother, the State decided that something was better than nothing and agreed to the 11 year sentence. 10. The case against this defendant was a much stronger case because there were no identity issues, the defendant had provided a statement to law enforcement and Mr. Leeman was in better mental health. 11. The defendant was the one who set up the cannabis deal, was aware that Mr. Leeman had cash on hand and knew where Mr. Leeman kept the cash. 12. The defendant was the only one of the two who were acquainted with Mr. Leeman, and he brought Mr. Hernandez to Mr. Leeman’s house. 13. The defendant was not similarly situated to codefendant Hernandez because Hernandez entered a fully negotiated plea. 16  14. Furthermore, the defendant was also charged in five different felony cases, one of which also involved violence against another. 15. The Order of Protection entered against the defendant also indicated violent tendencies. 16. Mr. Hernandez had no history of violent crime.” ¶ 30 On April 23, 2024, the circuit court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider. Following argument by the parties, the circuit court judge clarified on the record that she “did take [Hernandez’s] negotiated plea.” The judge further stated that the only factual information that the court heard related to Hernandez’s case was the State’s factual basis, which essentially entailed the reading of the information. The court noted that the State offered no additional evidence or facts during Hernandez’s negotiated plea. The court further continued to state the following: “Upon reading of the transcript, which is the only thing I know to be certain, there was nothing to any effect in relation to *** whether someone else shot the gun. It simply said that—and I believe that that is part of the allegation. I’m not saying it’s not. But they both pled guilty to the same offense. *** I then learned in [defendant’s] sentencing hearing that it was under the Theory of Accountability. And that’s when [defense counsel] wanted me to take into consideration the negotiated sentence of 11 years that the Defendant Hernandez was given based upon whatever their negotiation was. And as you know, [defense counsel], and as [the State] knows, the court knows just a tiny piece of why it’s being presented. And absent something that is so egregious, something that does not comport with the facts that you are given, only then you can say, Stop right here, I’m not going to accept it. And that happens. It does. But that did not happen in Mr. Hernandez’s situation. 17  *** *** But where does an open plea lie in relation to its similarities to a trial when the Defendant then has to be sentenced by someone, or a negotiated plea when it’s completely arranged between both sides and the judge has to decide if it’s approved? Those standards are much different. What you apply, what you consider are much different. *** Things that I have taken from the transcripts and my notes from the original sentencing hearing, I will share.” The court then highlighted that Detective Eggemeyer testified that defendant and Leeman were friends and that defendant initiated contact to purchase cannabis wax from Leeman. Defendant then brought Hernandez with him to Leeman’s home. Once they arrived, defendant and Hernandez entered Leeman’s bedroom, shut the door, and brandished a gun. Defendant then started to go through Leeman’s drawers for money, which he found and took into his possession. Hernandez then attempted to wipe the bedroom door handle with his shirt before firing a shot at Leeman’s head. The court continued to state: “There is no evidence that [defendant] knew or didn’t know [Hernandez had a gun]. From the circumstances of the facts that are laid in place, it would seem circumstantially that he did know, but there is no evidence of that. I’m not the trier of fact. But I do have to consider the culpability. Are they similarly situated individuals?” Although the court recognized that Hernandez was older than defendant, and defendant looked up to Hernandez, the court noted that both Hernandez and defendant ran out of Leeman’s house “with the money in Defendant’s pocket. There was no aid called. There was [sic] no warnings given to anyone.” Instead, Leeman “was left alone.” The court also took judicial notice of the recent plenary order of protection (23-OP-124) against defendant. The court noted that defendant had three 18 children over the course of 18 months while on bond. Next, the court stated that defendant’s juvenile criminal history included a conviction for residential burglary when defendant was 16 years old. A circuit court placed defendant on probation for this offense but revoked probation due to a subsequent theft offense and placed defendant in a juvenile correctional facility in Indiana. The court noted that it had considered this conviction only in the sense that defendant committed the instant offense 18 months after his release from the juvenile correctional facility. ¶ 31 The circuit court acknowledged that Hernandez shot Leeman. However, in terms of culpability, the court stated that defendant “was instrumental in initiating the contact with the victim.” The court continued to state that defendant and Leeman were friends and defendant “knew Leeman engaged in some type of drug sales perhaps that created money in his pocket.” The court also noted that Leeman and Popek informed Detective Eggemeyer “as soon as they shut the door[,] *** the gun was out,” and Leeman was instructed to “ ‘[g]ive us all you have got.’ ”