Appeals Court upholds 101-year sentence for man convicted of abduction, sex assault, robbery in DuPage Co.
Justin Dalcollo (DuPage County State's Attorney)
DUPAGE COUNTY, Ill. - The Kentucky man who was convicted of the 2019 abduction, sex assault and robbery of a college student in DuPage County lost his appeal for a sentence review.
Justin Dalcollo was found guilty of felony aggravated criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, kidnapping and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon during a five-day jury trial in December 2021.
On March 22, 2019, a 21-year-old woman was home from college on spring break when Dalcallo forced his way into her car at gunpoint in the parking lot at Bloomingdale Court Mall, prosecutors said.
Dalcollo ordered the woman to drive to a bank in Glendale Heights, where he forced her to withdraw $300 from her debit card, prosecutors said. He then forced her to drive to several other locations in Hanover Park and Bartlett.
He then forced the victim to park in a garage at the Grand Victoria Casino in Elgin, where he sexually assaulted her, prosecutors said.
After the assault, he forced her to drive to a convenience store and then told her to call a cab for him and drive him to a train station, prosecutors said.
The woman went to a hospital and reported the assault, prosecutors said, adding that Dalcollo was taken into custody the next day in Chicago.
Dalcollo was sentenced to 101 years in prison in May 2022. At his sentencing, prosecutors said the court found that a significant sentence was necessary to reassure the public that "the defendant cannot commit incomprehensible criminal acts on any other citizen," concluding that Dalcollo’s actions have "forfeited him from ever reentering society."
In his petition seeking a new sentencing hearing, Dalcollo claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing and improperly imposed consecutive sentences.
The Appellate Court concluded that "in light of the nature of defendant’s 10 convictions, and the court’s finding that his actions were ‘deplorable’ an ‘reprehensible’ and defendant was ‘incapable of rehabilitation’ the court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing defendant."