in presenting mitigation. Defendant’s last contention regarding sentencing is that the State made a variety of improper remarks during closing argument. Defendant first claims that the prosecutor improperly commented on his gang affiliation by the following remark: “Is the death and punishment and the letter found in defendant’s personal belongings, is that a true indication of what the defendant Aaron Patterson, is about? Of course it is. Is his statement to Judge Moran after being found guilty of his intent to continue the gang violence that he proliferates *** proof of what defendant, Aaron Patterson, is?” Statements based upon facts in evidence, or upon reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, are within the scope of proper argument. (See People v. Fields (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 18, 64 (<HOLDING>).) Thus, we believe this comment was proper, as
holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material holding references to defendants gang membership were proper commentary upon the evidence holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding that the proper scope of the review under rule 307 is to review any prior error that bears directly upon the question of whether the order on appeal was proper