cript of
Appeal

to
EELLATE Court of Illinois

FIRST

 

 

Circuit Court No. 95 CR 18602 If; -- 3
Trial Judge 

Reviewing Court No. 97-1555 ?2

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

1

rm 

A 4

mg?.

vs. 

THOMAS SIERRA

?6098103396



81?: 

  
 

DIVISION

 

 

 

AURELIA PUCINSKI

Clerk of Court

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS Per



Deputy



STATE OF

ILLINOIS 

SS:

COUNTY OF 

THE PEOPLE OF THE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DIVISION

Indictment No. 95?18602



STATE OF ILLINOIS 
Before Judge STUART E. PALMER


VS Thursday, March 13, 1997



THOMAS SIERRA Sentencing Hearing

APPEARANCES:

REPORTED

Official

HON. RICHARD A. DEVINE,

State's Attorney of Cook County, by
MS. PATRICIA SUDENDORF,

Assistant State's Attorney,
appeared for the People;

MS. RITA A. FRY,

Public Defender of Cook County, by
MR. BERNARD SARLEY,

Assistant Public Defender,
appeared for the Defendant.

BY
Thompson, CSR, RPR, 084-001143
Court Reporter

2650 South California

Date of Hearing: March 13, 1997
Page Numbers: to 31

PROCEEDINGS

Sentencing Hearing
Motion for new trial 3
Court's ruling 7
Aggravation 9
Mitigatibn l7
Court's sentence 23

3?18-97 (Pgs. H?l thru 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER SENTENCE

Ruling on Motion 4



 

 

THE CLERK: Thomas Sierra.

THE COURT: Are you going to present any live
testimony?

MR. SARLEY: NO.

THE COURT: Come on up here then. All right, do you
have any post trial motions?

MR. SARLEY: Yes, Your Honor. On March 4, 1997, I
filed a motion for new trial. And that is my post trial
motion.

THE COURT: Any argument?

MR. SARLEY: Yes, Your Honor. First of all, on all
the points that were made both in the pre?trial motion,
motions in limine prior to trial, and arguments on
evidentiary motions and so forth at trial, I would rely
on the arguments that I made at those point, and those
times during the proceedings.

I would specifically just like to mention a few
things. First of all, the testimony of both Detective
McMurray and Detective Guevara regarding the question of
the tinted windows. Once the defense apparently made a
point of distinguishing the fact that the offender?s
vehicle had tinted windows, and yet the vehicle that was
recovered and alleged to have been the vehicle used in

this incident, in which Mr. Sierra was allegedly seen,

did not have tinted windows.

Detective McMurray and Detective Guevara testified
that the tinted windows were probably taken off, and it
is very easy to take tinted windows off. I think that
testimony was improper for the jury to hear. It was the
subject of that testimony, I believe was not something
that is within the usual purview of the jurors, and I
think that those witnesses, or some witnesses needed to
be qualified as experts in that area before they could
make such a statement in front of the jury, that could
very well have had a very strong impact on the
deliberations and decision in this case. I think it is
improper for those detectives to just almost offhandedly
make those comments about tinted windows.

Specifically, I recall that Detective McMurray also
testifying at some point and being asked specific
questions by Mr. Palmer about the tinted windows. He
said Well, I didn't get close enough to see, yet he
admitted to driving the vehicle into the police station.
An obvious contradiction by Detective McMurray.

Secondly Your Honor, I would like to comment on the
testimony about the gangs, the gang testimony of Officer
Figuroa. He was not qualified as an expert witness

during this trial. However, over objection he testified

many things which are allegedly under the purview of a
gang expert witness. I have listed some of those in the
motion.

I would just like to mention the question of false
flagging. He testified about certain uses of false
flagging, as a means apparently for the State to explain
away the obvious problem in their case, that is; the gang
affiliation, alleged gang affiliation of Mr. Sierra being
different than the gang affiliation represented by the
offender in this case as being a different gang. The
officer was permitted to testify about how and when false
flagging is used.

His testimony was obviously based on hearsay that he
had determined or learned from some source at some other
point, and he was never qualified as an expert, and as
such Your Honor, this particular testimony, as crucial as
it was to the State's case to explain the difference,
should not have been allowed, and was very prejudicial,
and very damaging, and was not properly submitted as
expert testimony.

So, I just wanted to specifically mention those
points. Otherwise as I said, I would rely on the points
and arguments that I made during the course of the

proceedings.

THE COURT: State, Ms. Sudendorf.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your Honor, I also would rely on the
arguments that were made at all the junctures as to the
motion to quash the testimony involving?- and the
evidentiary hearings involving Mr. Melendez, as well as
motion for directed findings that were made, and other
argument that were made during the course of the trial,
and preliminary motions by the State.

Specifically, speaking to the comments of counsel,
first of all as to Officer Figuroa being qualified as a
gang expert. He was qualified as a gang expert in this
court. He was cross examined by the defense in this
case, specifically concerning false flagging as well, and
asks his opinion as to certain matters concerning false
flagging. In essence, could flagging with these types of

hand gestures indicate an allegiance, what were the

idifferent things these hand gestures could elicit to a

gang member, or opposing began member. One of those
being false flagging, the other being identification,
which was inquired into by the defendant in this case,
who was also relying on Officer Figuroa?s expertise at
that time when he made those inquiries.

I believe Officer Figuroa was qualified as an expert

and in fact was drawing upon that expertise by the

defendant himself when he asked questions concerning the
hand gestures made by the parties in this case.

Specifically, then as to the tinted window argument
made by counsel, I would submit to Your Honor that the
testimony elicited both from Detective McMurray and
Detective Guevara is in the purview of a common person,
again being the jury, whether the tinted windows were
permanently affixed or temporarily affixed, they did not
say they were definitely permanent, they were definitely
temporarily affixed. However, that it could be such, and
they were unable to make that determination.

Again, just as someone is able to testify to speed or
anything else, this is something that was in the common
person's knowledge. And again, we were not asking
definitively was it, but could have been, and I believe
that the testimony elicited by the detective was not
prejudicial on that count. That is specifically as to the
argument made by counsel.

To the rest, Your Honor, we would submit that the
Court heard the evidence, both in the pre?trial motions,
and the motions in limine, and the trial itself, and
submit that Your Honor made the proper rulings, and we
will ask that you deny the motion for new trial.

THE COURT: Motion for new trial is denied.

Mr. Sarley, have you had the opportunity to review the
pre?sentence investigation report?

MR. SARLEY: Yes, I have, YOur Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any additions or corrections?

MR. SARLEY: There are just two corrections that I
would like to make, both on page 4 under the social
history. After speaking to Mr. Sierra, he told me that
those were misstatements and would like to have those
corrected.

The first one, bottom of the second paragraph, last
sentence, except for his father, in part it says "except
for his father who once served a prison sentence, offense
unknown". He has indicated to me that he has no
knowledge that his father ever served a prison sentence,
and that information is incorrect. He asked me to ask
that be stricken.

And secondly 

THE COURT: That is stricken.

MR. SARLEY: Thank you. Secondly, the next paragraph
after that, second sentence says he claimed to have moved
in with his grandmother at the age of five. Apparently,
there was a miscommunication, because Mr. Sierra
indicated that it was age eleven when he in fact moved

in. He asked me to change that, also.

Other than that, there are no further corrections.

THE COURT: All right. And are you in position to
waive the waiting period in regards to this?

MR. SARLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, aggravation.

MS. SUDENDORF: In aggravation, we do have the Victim
Impact Statement submitted by the mother of Noel Andujar,
which we would ask to publish to the Court.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. SUDENDORF: Ms. Gomez is present in court. This
is the statement of Ms. Gomez, who is the mother of the
victim in this case, Noel Andujar.

This crime resulted in the death of my son. My son
Noel was in the back seat of a car and another car drove
up shooting, striking him in the head. My family and I
have been receiving counseling. Classes were given to us
for depression and sudden death in the family.

My family and I have changed so much since the murder
of Noel. Our lifestyles are not the same. I see so many
sorrow in the eyes of my other two children. This became
an unforgettable memory for my daughter on her
graduation. My son can't even function correctly since
the lost of his only brother.

Noel also had little boy named David. Noel's death

really effected him, in the sense he knows he is gone,
but doesn't have any clue as to where or why. He is
four years old now. Noel's son will not have a father to
guide him in the right direction, hold him when he is
scared of the dark, or to show him how to play ball.

Yes, life has been emotionally disrupted by this
murder. Since this, I don't go to visit friends any
more. At night I have problems sleeping. I also stopped
eating the way I use to, which cause weight loss, and I
now have so many medical problems. It is real hard for
me and my family to live day in and day out without Noel.
This is a nightmare that we just can't wake up from.

At the time of Noel's death, I was on Public Aid and
expenses were high, and half of them were paid by Public
Aid. Exactly how much, I don't know, but whatever
happens with the result of this sentence it will never
bring my son back. We have suffered dearly.

The fact is that a man like Thomas Sierra took the
life of a man who deserved to be in this world with his
family. Yet a man like you, Thomas, shouldn't even walk
this earth. You are just a menace to society.

Taking the life of another person with no reason
should be punished severely. This can save another

innocent life in the long run.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your Honor, for purposes of
aggravation, do you wish argument or 

THE COURT: Do you have any evidence in mitigation?

MR. SARLEY: No evidence to offer.

THE COURT: You can argue in aggravation.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your Honor for purposes of
aggravation, you heard the Victim Impact Statement
submitted by Ms. Gomez, and it does speak out in anger,
and in frustration, and in pain.

And the Court in determining the proper sentence in
this case does not necessarily, does not consider those
aspects of what Ms. Gomez has felt or what her family has
felt, but the Court is allowed to consider as one of the
factors in aggravation for sentencing, the necessity to
deter others from these actions, and I believe that is
what the Victim Impact Statement from Ms. Gomez clearly
asks for from this Court.

Your Honor, I think really telling in the
pre?sentence investigation are two things: One being

that the defendant, although admitting to being a member

'of the Imperial Gangsters street gang for approximately

five years, 1990 to 1995, and clearly was one of these

members when this murder occurred, says he is no longer

affiliated with this gang, and that disassociation with
that gang occurred while in custody for this crime.

Your Honor, all too often you are presiding over
cases that involve these gang shootings, and while these
guys are out there on the street, you know the gang is
everything, and the gang gets them transportation, and
the gang gets them guns, and the gang gets them power,
and the gang gets them neighborhoods, and the gang gets
them victims.

And then they find out, you know, when they come to
the Department of Corrections as a result of actions that
gang got them, that they have got them into the
Department of Corrections, then all of the sudden, the
gang's worth is no good to them any more, specifically as
Mr. Sierra tells this Court through this pre?sentence
investigation. It either gets them into the Department
of Corrections, or it gets them unfortunately where
Mr. Noel Andujar is, and that is; no longer with
everybody else out here trying to enjoy our neighborhood,
but this is when the gang, or this is when Mr. Sierra
has his divine inspiration that the gangs do nothing for
him any more, when he is in jail looking at time for
killing another, because of his gang affiliation.

I find also telling what Mr. Sierra had available to

choices, as everyone does, and Mr. Sierra chose to
hang with the Imperial Gangsters, and Mr. Sierra chose to
get into the car on May 23, 1995, and Mr. Sierra chose to
point a gun at a vehicle that was occupied by

Mr. Andujar, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Melendez, and open
fire on that car, just because that car belonged to
another gang member. It doesn?t matter what other gang
member, just other gang members he believed, and just
riddled that car with bullets, and struck Mr. Andujar in
the head, but for the grace of God, he could have struck
any of those other two in the car, because he just opened
fire, and Your Honor was able to see what that car looked
like with all of the bullet holes riddled throughout,
every window practically blasted out of that car, and

Mr. Sierra keeps going. That is the choices that he
made.

He says in his pre?sentence investigation on page 5
that he went to school at Holy Trinity High School for
three and a half years and then withdrew because his
grandmother had died, and he had no place to live and no
means of support.

Well, he had a place to live and means of support on
May 25th, May 23, 1995. He claims in his employment

history he claims to have lost his position at a job at

the Triple A and Service Company in Maywood due to a
lack of transportation. Well, he was not without a means
of a lack of transportation on the evening of May 23,
1995, because he chose and he was able to get
transportation to do his gang business.

It is choices. You can choose to get transportation
to make a livelihood, or you can choose to get
transportationtransact your
gang business. Those are the choices that is Mr. Sierra
made, and choices that he has to live with.

Your Honor, for purposes of sentencing, the jury

found that on February 7, 1997, that the defendant

committed the offense of murder, and aggravated discharge
of a firearm, the murder to Noel Andujar, and the
aggravated discharge of a firearm to Mr. Alberto
Rodriguez ans Jose Melendez.

Your Honor, pursuant to the statute, 55?8-4?8, we
would ask this Court to consider a term, a consecutive
term of imprisonment as to the murder and the aggravated
discharge of a firearm, in that this was a single course
of conduct that the defendant participated in.

He was charged and was found guilty on a Class X.
The aggravated discharge of a firearm is a Class One

felony, and that the defendant inflicted severe bodily

G?l4

injury as a result, and we ask that you run the sentence
as consecutive terms of imprisonment on the murder and
the aggravated discharge of a firearm, because you must
protect the public from further criminal conduct by this
Defendant, and it is necessary to deter others.

Your Honor, the other factors in aggravation that we
are asking the Court to consider is that in fact the
defendant's conduct caused or threatened bodily harm, not
just obviously to Mr. Noel Andujar, but to Alberto
Rodriquez and Jose Melendez, and I submit to Your Honor
the people at Logan Square this happened at 10:30 in
the evening on May 23rd, 1995, at a very busy
intersection.

Your Honor heard testimony about this. Here is the
veteran's war hero statute in the middle of the street,
and this is the terrain that, again this man chose to
start shooting and spraying approximately fourteen
bullets through the night sky.

The defendant also chose, after he had already been
warned by the court system that you a not to have a gun,
carry a gun, and that was just five months prior to this
shooting. On December 19, 1994, the defendant plead
guilty and received one year conditional discharge from

Judge Davis, one year. Within five months of that plea





guilty, he is with a gun again, and he is using that
gun towards Mr. Noel Andujar.

We would also ask Your Honor to consider a factor in
aggravation, the fact that the defendant is, and his
actions were part of an organized gang activity. That is
what this case was all about, and you heard that from
Alberto Rodriguez, from Jose Melendez, from the
detectives, et cetera. That is why we are here. That is
why the defendant now wants out, because the gang is not
doing anything for him any more, you know, today in
court, but that precisely the reason, this gang activity
is precisely the reason that Mr. Andujar is no longer
here, and Logan Square was turned into a battlefield on
May 23rd of 1995.

Your Honor, again we are asking that the Court
consider a term of consecutive imprisonment in this case
on the murder and the aggravated discharge of a firearm,
because as indicated by Ms. Gomez, and the State would
submit to the Court, a message does need to be sent to
the community, needs to be sent to the community of Logan
Square that this type the activity is not going to be
tolerated. These people need to feel safe within their
hones and their neighborhoods, and not have these

neighborhoods turned into bloody wars between these

gangs, and this sentence is necessary to deter others, to
tell other gang members that are out there right now
before they come in here and are faced with murder, or
are murdered themselves, to defer from this activity, and
we ask you that you sentence him to an extensive period
of incarceration.

THE COURT: Mr. Sarley.

MR. SARLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. First of all,
Judge, it is difficult mitigation argument to make in
this particular case for me, more so than in most cases,
because this is a case where quite frankly I believe that
the jury verdict was improper. I have to put that aside
and almost act like, for purposes of sentencing, that it
was proper, or act like it was a right verdict in order
to put it in perspective of a sentencing mitigation
argument, but for the record, that is the case.

First of all, I would ask that Your Honor consider
the following points in mitigation that appear in the
pre?sentence investigation. First of all, that until
shortly before the time he was arrested for this
incident, that Mr. Sierra was employed. He was working
to support himself and his family as best he could, that
he was in fact in high school until his grandmother died,

and then he had to leave high school, because he could

not support himself any more. That is the reason he left
high school and he got a job, and I ask you to consider
that in mitigation, because at least it shows that he was
trying to make something of his life before he got
arrested in this case.

Furthermore, Your Honor, I would ask you to consider
in mitigation the fact that he has a daughter, who
unfortunately was born after he was incarcerated. He has
never seen his daughter I mean not never seen her, but
never has really been with that daughter, and I know
Mr. Sierra would like to try to aid in bringing up of his
daughter, and again, I think that it shows that
Mr. Sierra before he got arrested in this case was at
least trying to make something of his life, was trying to
be a productive citizen, was trying to look after himself
and his responsibilities by working and trying to do
something to better himself.

Further, Your Honor, I would ask you to consider that
Mr. Sierra has had no prior felony convictions. I
believe the_pre?sentence investigation indicates that he
has never had any juvenile adjudications, and the one
prior conviction he has was a conditional discharge
sentence, apparently possession of weapons charge, UUW

charge.

would ask you to consider that Mr. Sierra has never
been involved in any prior felony activity, or prior
violent activity, in considering mitigating the sentence
in this case. I believe that he at least qualifies under
the one mitigating factor, which is lack of criminal
history, to be considered by the Court in considering
what the appropriate sentence is.

I would also note that Mr. Sierra wishes to make a
statement to the Court, and actually it is through a
written statement, rather than an oral statement. I
would ask you to consider that he ??and again, this is
again a difficult argument to make, I believe he is
candidate for -- a good candidate for rehabilitation. Of
course, in order to be rehabilitated, you have to be
rehabilitated from something that you did, and the jury
found him guilty of these offenses, so it is difficult
for me to say that he is a good date candidate for
rehabilitation, but I will phrase it that way.

I think that the efforts that the pre?sentence
investigation show he has made in his life to try to get
on the right track, are efforts that Your Honor should
consider in deciding the sentence, because the potential
for his rehabilitation, and again "rehabilitation? is

something that Your Honor needs to consider as one of the

factors in determining what the fact sentence should be
in this case.

Counsel spent sometime talking about gang
affiliation, and I would like Your Honor to also consider
how difficult it is for a person who is in a gang, in a
situation as he ended up in, to get out from under a case
like this, with a charge like this and he has expressed
in his pre?sentence investigation, and also in his 
believe you will see in his letter to Your Honor his idea
that yes, being in the gang is probably was not that
great of an idea, and of course I am sure he regrets it
now, and that is about all he can do from this point on
is try to make his life or other people's lives better by
trying to stop them from making the same mistakes that he
did.

So, I would like Your Honor to consider all of those
factors in minimizing Mr. Sierra's sentence, because I
think that si appropriate in this case.

One other thing that I would like to address, since
counsel brought it up, counsel is asking Your Honor to
consider that it is appropriate to sentence him to a
consecutive term for these offenses. I don't think the
law allows for it in this situation.

First of all, the particular subsection that counsel

addresses her comments to, indicates that the Court shall
not impose consecutive sentences for offenses which were
committed as part of a single course of conduct, during
which there was no substantial change in the nature of
the criminal objective, unless one of the offenses for
which the defendant was convicted was a Class or Class
One felony and the defendant inflicted severe bodily
injury.

I would ask Your Honor to notes that the Class One
convictions for aggravated discharge of a firearm did not
include any bodily injury. There were convictions for
shooting in the direction of the persons in the car, and
therefore on either a Class or Class One felony, there
has been no infliction of severe bodily injury.
Therefore, I don't believe strictly that this case fits
under this particular category, and therefore consecutive
sentences are improper.

I would also like to cite two cases to Your Honor.
One of the cases is People versus Files, cited at 260
Illinois Appellate 3rd, 618, 632 Northeast 2nd, 1087, and
People versus Banks, which is cited at 260, Illinois
Appellate 3rd, 464, 632 Northeast 2nd, 257.

Your Honor, in both of these cases, there were

convictions for multiple offenses against multiple



defendants, and both of them, both of the cases involving
shootings, and both of those cases, the Court stated that
concurrent sentences should have been imposed. They
were both situations where concurrent sentences should
have imposed. Different situations.

In one of them, two police officer were shot at. In
another one, several people were also shot at. I would
ask you Your Honor to consider the language in both Banks
and Files.

THE COURT: Do you have copies?

MR. SARLEY: Yes, I do. I just have the one copy.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SARLEY: In denying the State's request for Your
Honor to impose consecutive sentences.

That is pretty much all I have to say, Your Honor.
Again, I believe Mr. Sierra has the potential for
rehabilitation. Again, in context of the comments that I
made earlier, it is a funny argument to make, but I will
make it. I think he has a family and a daughter now that
he can try to effect the life of, and the lives of, and I
would ask Your Honor in considering your sentencing to
give him an opportunity to do that.

I know Mr. Sierra has a handwritten letter that he

wishes to present to Your Honor, and that is really the



only the argument I have. I ask you to consider
minimizing his sentence on this case considering those
factors.

I would tender the letter that he wrote and ask you
to substitute that for an oral statement.

(Short pause)

THE COURT: State, do you want to respond to the
argument with respect to consecutive sentencing?

MS. SUDENDORF: I believe that we have shown it is a
Class and a Class One, and it was done in a single
course of conduct, and that there was severe bodily
injury indicated. I don't believe that the injury needs
to be inflicted on the aggravated discharge of firearms,
that the injury that was inflicted was on the murder
charge to Mr. Noel Andujar. And as such, it does fit the
criteria for the statute.

THE COURT: Mr. Sierra, is there anything you want to
say to me before I impose sentence upon you?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir, I just want you to read the
letter.

THE COURT: Okay, fine.

(Short pause)
THE COURT: All right, I read a two page letter from

the defendant, which since it is his elocution, I think

should be made an exhibit for sentencing. So, I will
ask the State to impound the letter, so the Appellate
Court can review that, if you they wish to.

I have had an opportunity to review the pre?sentence
investigation, and have listened to all the arguments in
aggravation and mitigation, and I have also obviously
presided over trial in this case.

The trial in this case involved another of the many
senseless gang motivated killings that I have had to
listen to in the many trials that I have heard that
involve the same factual scenario.

This is another case of gang members feeling that for
some reason or another they have license to reek their
deadly revenge upon rival gang members for some perceived
or imagined slight.

The most striking thing that has come to my attention
in all of these cases, and in this case, is that it seems
that the gang mentality is such that it is perceived
there is also a separate society, and that they have
their own rules to live by, and that when they feel they
want to take someone else's life, they can just take
someone else's life, and that is it, without any
consideration for the damage done to that person, and

that person's family, and the sole motivation, and

justification is that person happens to be or is
perceived to be from a rival gang, and that rivalry stems
just from the fact one gang is on one side of the street
and the other gang is on other side of the street, and
because of that, you get to kill people.

Well, the problem with that is this isn't a separate
society, and when push comes to shove, they have to
answer to this society. And I have said it before and I
will say it again, Mr. Sierra, you know, he comes before
me, and I am suppose to take into account that he doesn't
have a big criminal record and I do take that into
account, but the fact of the matter is that Mr. Sierra
has been a member of a gang, a street gang, a Chicago
street gang for five years. It was not until he is
facing a murder charge and sitting in the County Jail
that he decided you know what, I don't want to be a gang
member any more. It is not a good thing, but when he is
on the streets of the City of Chicago, being a gang
member is just great. It is just great.

Well, street gangs are, in case anybody needs to be
reminded, criminal organizations. Their sole goal is to
participate in criminal activity. And so, what I have
before me is a man who for five years was a member of a

criminal organization, and it was not until he caught a

murder case that he decided I am not going to be part of
this criminal organization any more.

I do take into account as a factor in mitigation what
is set forth in the statute, that the defendant does not
have a significant criminal history. He has one prior,
what looks to me to be a misdemeanor conviction for
carrying a gun, but I think that counter balanced by that
factor in mitigation is the existence of that unlawful
use of weapons misdemeanor conviction, for which he was
on conditional discharge at the time of this killing.

And that is a factor in aggravation that is set forth
in the statute that I can consider that the defendant was
on probation or a sentence of conditional discharge at
the time that he engaged in this killing.

To put it in more explicit terms, at some point and
time during 1994, Mr. Sierra appeared in front of a Judge
in Misdemeanor Court, and that Judge said okay, you got
caught with a gun, I am going to give you a break,
because you don't have record, and I will give you break
and give you conditional discharge.

So, don't get in trouble for a year, and what happens
is that he commits a murder. So, apparently he was not
paying attention when Judge Davis told him I am going to

give you a break. So, while I see the mitigation in lack

criminal history, I also see the aggravation in the
fact that this person was on conditional discharge at the
time that he committed this offense.

I understand that in aggravation also, I can take
into account that his conduct threatened serious bodily
harm to other people in the vicinity when he let loose
this flurry of bullets, and I do take that into
consideration.

I think the most serious factor in aggravation, and I
have spoken to it already, so I am not going to spend a
lot of time on it, I think the most serious factor in
aggravation is the fact that this crime is another crime
that was motivated by his participation in an organized
gang, and it is like I am talking to the wall and nobody
is listening, and there are thirty Judges in this
building that are just talking to the wall. Nobody seems
to care.

You know, the thing is, Mr. Sierra, when you wind up
here in the County Jail, after you commit this murder,
and then when you go to the Department of Corrections,
look around you, your gang buddies are not anywhere to be
found. They are not standing next to you. They are not
sitting in the gallery wishing you well, and they are not

going to be with you in the Department of Corrections.

Okay, now you are on your own, because when you go down
for the murder, it is you, not your gang, that will have
to do the time. I consider that a factor in aggravation,
and the fact that it is listed in the statute under
subsection 15, and I consider that a factor in
aggravation that I consider very seriously.

With regard to the question of concurrent and
consecutive sentencing, I read the case law that has been
tendered by counsel. I don't think it is applicable to
this case. And I do believe that statute applies to
Mr. Sierra. He has been convicted of murder, and he was
convicted of two additional counts of aggravated
discharge of a firearm, which is a Class One felony, and
he did cause serious bodily harm.

And therefore I think that a consecutive sentence
with regards to the aggravated discharge of a firearm
count is appropriate, and I also think it is appropriate
because under subsection B, I think that based on the
nature and circumstances of the offense, and the history
of the defendant with regards to his gang membership, it
is my opinion that consecutive sentence is necessary to
protect the public.

I am not saying that I am totally oblivious to the

fact that the defendant doesn't have any prior felony

convictions. And for the record I am stating that I have
tempered the sentence that I have arrived at, because of
the fact that he does not have any prior felony
convictions.

It is the finding of this Court that on the offense
of first degree murder, that the defendant should be
sentenced to 45 years in the Illinois Department of
Corrections.

With regards to the offense, the two offenses of
aggravated discharge of a firearm, the defendant will be
sentenced to a consecutive sentence of ten years in the
Illinois Department of Corrections. The sentences for
the two aggravated discharge of firearm counts will be
concurrent, so that will be 45 plus 10 is 55.

Mr. Sierra, you have a right to appeal. In order to
accomplish that, you have to file a written notion of
appeal within thirty days of today?s date. If you can't
afford an attorney, or the cost of the transcript that
you need to accomplish that, those will be provided for
you at no cost to yourself.

Anything else?

MR. SARLEY: Yes, Your Honor. He has served six
hundred and fifty~four days in custody up until today's

date. I would ask that Mr. Sierra be given credit for



those days having been served towards his sentence.

Secondly, Your Honor, apparently, or at least I

believe from my reading of the case law, I need to file a

motion to reconsider sentence, and I would ask that Your

Honor consider perhaps setting the case down for a day

next week so I can file that, and that motion can be

heard.
THE COURT:

MR. SARLEY:

All right.

Maybe the 18th, which is a Tuesday; is

that an okay date?

THE COURT:

MR. SARLEY:

THE COURT:

I am sorry?
The 18th, which is Tuesday.

Yes, that is fine. Whether or not that

is the order, the defendant obviously has no bond, and I

will continue this matter to the 18th of March for the

filing of any motions to reconsider. All right.

MR. SARLEY:

Thank you.
(WHICH matter was continued until

the 18th day of March, 1997.)

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

SS:
COUNTY OF 

I, D. THOMPSON, CSR, RPR, Official
Court Reporter of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
County Department?Criminal Division, do hereby certify
that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
hearing of the above?entitled cause, and that I
thereafter caused to be transcribed into typewriting the
above Report of Proceedings, which I hereby certify to be
a true and correct transcript of the proceedings had at
the hearing of the above?entitled cause before the
HONORABLE STUART E. PALMER, Judge of the Criminal

Division.

  
    
 

\i sin Keir-2? 

oirt porter of the
Circuit Court of Cook County
CRIMINAL DIVISION

   
 
 

    

 

    

STATE OF ILLINOIS 


COUNTY OF 0 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS Criminal

VS. NO. 95-18602

THOMAS SIERRA Charge:

MOTION TO RECONSIDER SENTENCE
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS of the hearing held in
the above~entitled cause on the 18th day of March 1997
before the Honorable STUART E. PALMER, Judge of said
courtHON. RICHARD A. DEVINE, State?s
Attorney of Cook County, by:
MS. PATRICIA SUDENDORF,
Assistant State?s Attorney,

appeared for the People;

MS. RITA FRY, Public
Defender of Cook County, by:
MR. BERNARD SARLEY,
Assistant Public Defender,

appeared for the DefendantCLAUDIA M. LEMON, CSR
Official Court Reporter
2650 South California
Chicago, Illinois 60608

 

 

THE COURT: Okay, bring me Thomas Sierra.

MR. SARLEY: For the record my name is Bernard
Sarley, assistant public defender.

First of all, I would ask leave of Court to
file a document entitled Motion to Reconsider
Sentence. I?ve just now tendered a copy to counsel
for the State.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SARLEY: Your Honor, just in terms of
argument, I would -- I believe I am required to file
this motion, and I would just rely on my arguments
that I made during the sentencing hearing, and
respectfully ask this Court to consider re to
consider rethinking and reducing Mr. Sierra?s
sentence, either reducing the time imposed or
consider or to considering running the terms
concurrent instead of consecutive with the arguments
and for the reasons I gave than as stated in them.

THE COURT: All right. State, do you have
anything you want to say?

MS. SUDENDORF: Your Honor, we would rest on the
arguments we made before your Honor in the sentencing
hearing.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay, Motion to Reconsider

 

 

Sentence is denied.

MR. SARLEY: Your Honor, Mr. Sierra continues to
be indigent for purposes of appeal. And what I would
ask your Honor to sign now is an order which is a
Notice of Appeal and a petition for a free transcript
with regard to his appeal in this case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SARLEY: I will file it in the Clerk?s Office.

Your Honor, there are two other matters I
told Mr. Sierra I would ask your Honor. First of all,
he is requesting a possible stay of mittimus in this
case until if possible the 3lst of March. of
March is two weeks from yesterday.

THE COURT: All right, why is that?

MR. SARLEY: He needs to attend some personal
matters before he gets sentenced.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SARLEY: He does not need to be returned to
court.

THE COURT: Did you say the 3lst?

MR. SARLEY: Right. The other thing his mother
and his daughter were here earlier. Although I told
them to come back around 12:00, and I don?t see them

right now.

 

 

you remember from the Presentence Report,
he was his child was born While he was in custody,
and he?s never really got a chance to hold his child.
He has asked me to ask if he could have a contact
visit sometime today.

THE COURT: Ugh-ugh, sorry.
MR. SARLEY: Okay, all right. Thank you very

much, Judge.

(Which were all the
proceedings offered and
received in the

above?entitled cause.)



 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS)
SS:
COUNTY OF K)

I, CLAUDIA M. LEMON, Official Court Reporter
of the Circuit Court of Cook County, County
Department - Criminal Division, do hereby certify that
I reported in shorthand the proceedings had in the
trial in the above-entitled cause; that I thereafter
caused to be transcribed into typewriting the above
Report of Proceedings which I hereby certify is a true
and correct transcript of all the evidence heard on
said date before the Honorable STUART E. PALMER,

Judge of said court.

 
 
    

 

. gf%%;w

Official Court Reporter
Circuit Court of Cook County
Criminal Division

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF COOK COUNTY ..
COUNTY DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL DIVISION



THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS


r?f

 

  
 

REPORT OF COMPLIANCE

I. Thomas G. MCEnory. Supervisor of the O?lctd Court as
of tho Clroult Court of Cook county. County Department. Division.

do hereby state that on tho I 7 day of W/y 513- 1997
the original Report of Proceedings In tho above entitled 7

cause were ?led with the Clerk of tho Dtv?lolon.

   
   

Thomas G. McEmtyt
Suoowhor

    

 

 

 

Received :9
Warm); CIork. Crimtmt Division

9?56? 

 . (Rev. 2/18/93) 
II I 7 I 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK

I, AURELIA PUCINSKI, Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Cook County,? in said County and State, and Keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify the

RD
above and foregoing to be a true, perfect and complete copy of . 579.11% RF. .A. EEK .VOLCONSISTING OF THE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS, ONLY. NO PRAECIPE HAVING BEEN FILED





COURT NO. 97?1555.



in a certain cause . . -. . . . ., LA. pending' in said Court, between
The People of the State of Illinois WERE. Plaintiffs and
. . TEQMS. A.S. ., Defendant. . . .

Witness: AURELIA PUCINSKL,
Clerk of the court, and the Seal thereof, at Chicago.

a; In said County, JULY . .1.7. . . l9 . .97.

 

PUCINSKI, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY