No. 2--06--1217
-8-
revoke. If that motion were allowed, *** the sentence would be vacated and this matter
would be set for hearing. Any issues or claims of error that you fail to put in that motion
would be deemed waived on appeal."
The trial court's admonishment that defendant must move to withdraw his admission to the petition
to revoke probation was inaccurate. To be sure, when a defendant is sentenced on a negotiated guilty
plea, he may appeal only after moving to withdraw his guilty plea. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 605(c). This
sentence, however, was imposed on an admission to a probation violation, which triggered the
admonishments under Rule 605(a), regardless of whether the original guilty pleas were negotiated.
See 210 Ill. 2d R. 605(a)(1); see generally Tufte, 165 Ill. 2d 66. Again, the trial court made no
mention that defendant could file a motion to reconsider his sentence. Under these circumstances,
we will address the merits of defendant's sentencing argument, and, in any case, we note that
forfeiture "limits the parties' ability to raise an argument, not this court's right to entertain an
argument." People v. Benford, 349 Ill. App. 3d 721, 734 (2004).
Turning to the merits, it is well established that a factor inherent in the offense should not
be considered as a factor in aggravation at sentencing. People v. Conover, 84 Ill. 2d 400, 404 (1981);
People v. Malin, 359 Ill. App. 3d 257, 264 (2005). However, there is a strong presumption that the
trial court based its sentencing determination on proper legal reasoning, and thus we review the trial
court's sentencing decision with deference. People v. Bowman, 357 Ill. App. 3d 290, 303-04 (2005).
The burden is on the defendant to affirmatively establish that the sentence was based on improper
considerations. People v. Conley, 118 Ill. App. 3d 122, 133 (1983).
In determining whether the trial court based the sentence on proper aggravating and
mitigating factors, a court of review should consider the record as a whole, rather than focusing on
