People v. Callicutt

── People v. Callicutt ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 250735-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is April 24, 2026 NO. 4-25-0735 Carla Bender not precedent except in the th limited circumstances allowed 4 District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Henry County BENJAMIN R. CALLICUTT, ) No. 24MT463 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Colby G. Hathaway, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE DOHERTY delivered the judgment of the court Justices Zenoff and DeArmond concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Defendant’s actions fell within the conduct prohibited by the fleeing or eluding statute and no plain error occurred during sentencing. ¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Benjamin R. Callicutt was convicted of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer (625 ILCS 5/11-204 (West 2024)), failing to carry or display a driver’s license (id. § 6-112), and not having a rear license plate light (id. § 12-201(c)). He was sentenced to 12 months of conditional discharge. In this direct appeal, he argues that the fleeing or eluding statute does not encompass his conduct and that the trial court erred in its consideration of mitigating factors during sentencing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 The issue on appeal stems from a September 9, 2024, traffic stop. At defendant’s jury trial, officer Joshua Lane from the Kewanee Police Department testified that he initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by defendant. Lane verified that there was body-worn camera footage of the incident, and it was subsequently admitted into evidence. Lane’s testimony and the body-worn camera footage depicted the following events. After defendant’s vehicle pulled over, Lane approached defendant and explained that he initiated the stop because there was no rear license plate light. Defendant handed Lane his insurance information and then began to insist that the missing license plate light was a “made up reason” to initiate the stop for harassment, and he questioned whether he should report the matter to Lane’s supervisor. Lane insisted that he did not fabricate a reason to stop defendant and was not harassing him; he then asked for defendant’s driver’s license. Defendant refused to provide his license, name, or date of birth. A back-and-forth occurred between the two on the necessity of defendant providing identification. Defendant continued to claim there was no reason for the traffic stop and that he was being harassed. After Lane informed defendant he was under a legal obligation to provide his name or face obstruction charges, defendant gave Lane his name. ¶5 After identifying himself, defendant stated, “you have a nice day because you have no reason to stop me.” Lane responded that defendant was “going to wait until I finish up my