3030 Salt Creek Lane, Suite 120,
Arlington Heights, IL 60005

Call Us Today for a FREE Initial Consultation


Peoria Court Affirms Home Invasion Sentence

 Posted on December 09, 2013 in Criminal Defense

A Peoria County appeals court recently affirmed the conviction of a man accused to participating in a home invasion. Defendant Jordan Tennon was convicted of home invasion and sentenced to 27 years in prison.

Tennon appealed his sentence alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to 27 years when the minimum sentence for home invasion was 21 years

Authorities accused Tennon and others of invading the home of a drug dealer in hopes of finding money and drugs. About $2,000 and some marijuana paraphernalia was stolen during the home invasion. Authorities say that some of the home occupants were also assaulted and that one of the occupants was pistol-whipped.

Tennon was allegedly found in possession of $1,000 and a handgun holster as he ran outside of the house and attempted to flee through the home's backyard. Tennon allegedly admitted to participating in the heist and directed officers to the location of the gun.

In claiming that his sentence was excessive, Tennon pointed out that he was 19 years old at the time of the robbery and had no prior criminal history.

Appealing a sentence such as this one is typically a very difficult task only handled by experienced criminal defense attorneys. Trial courts have significant discretion in imposing sentences, so it is very hard to prove that a sentence is excessive unless it falls outside of the statutorily prescribed range.

In this case, the court noted that the effective sentencing range for Tennon was 21 to 45 years, limited to the 38-year cap which was part of a plea deal.

The appeals court noted that the trial court considered all relevant mitigating factors in this case and that Tennon's sentence was not excessive considering the seriousness of his crime.

"We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court merely because we would have weighed the sentencing factors differently," the appeals court judges wrote. "The trial court properly considered factors in aggravation and mitigation and imposed a sentence within the statutory range."

Share this post:
Back to Top