1337 (1949)). In Whitehead, the defendant was sentenced for possession of cannabis less than 20 grams, contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a child, and delivery of a controlled substance to a minor. 21 So.3d at 158. He appealed his sentence, arguing, among other things, that the trial court improperly considered pending charges from another county. The pending charges were for unlawful sex acts with a minor in Indian River County. Finding the pending charges relevant to sentencing because it involved the defendant’s conduct toward minors, we affirmed the sentence. Id. at 160. We noted that the trial court reviewed the arrest affidavit in the pending case, which contain Ill.Dec. 632, 485 N.E.2d 443, 446 (1985)); People v. Biggs, 89 Ill.App.2d 324, 231 N.E.2d 626, 628 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Daniels, 2003 WL 22519882, at *3 (holding
holding the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendants subsequent conduct in determining whether he possessed the intent and motive for the first degree burglary charge holding that the district court properly considered the moisture content in the calculation of the weight of the marijuana for sentencing purposes holding that the trial court improperly relied on a subsequent charge in sentencing where the trial court stated she was imposing the sentence based on the fact that you reoffended among other reasons holding that the trial court properly considered the defendants subsequent arrests for two other robberies while on bond when sentencing the defendant holding that trial judge properly considered defendants misdemeanor convictions