Appeals court upholds 101-year prison sentence for man convicted of DuPage Co. kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery

DUPAGE COUNTY, IL.The Kentucky man who was convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting and robbing a DuPage County college student in 2019 has lost his appeal for a review of his sentence.

Justin Dalcollo was convicted of felony aggravated 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 returning home from college during spring break when Dalcallo forced his way into her car at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Bloomingdale Court shopping center, police said. prosecutors.

Dalcollo ordered the woman to go to a bank in Glendale Heights, where he forced her to withdraw $300 from her debit card, prosecutors said. He then forced her to go 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, then told her to call a taxi for him and take him to a train station, prosecutors said.

The woman went to the hospital and reported the assault, prosecutors said, adding that Dalcollo was arrested the next day in Chicago.

Dalcollo was sentenced to 101 years in prison in May 2022. At his sentencing, prosecutors said the court felt a significant sentence was necessary to reassure the public that “the defendant cannot commit crimes.” “incomprehensible criminal acts on any other citizen”, concluding that Dalcollo’s actions “deprived him of any reintegration into society”.

In his motion requesting a new sentencing hearing, Dalcollo claimed the trial court abused its sentencing discretion and inappropriately imposed consecutive sentences.

The Court of Appeal concluded that “in light of the nature of the defendant’s 10 convictions and the court’s finding that his actions were ‘deplorable’, ‘reprehensible’ and that the defendant was ‘incapable of rehabilitation,’ the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant. “