JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court:

In November 2001, a jury found defendant, LawrenceWillis, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, guilty ofaggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(6) (West 2000)). InDecember 2001, the trial court sentenced him to five years'imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) tobe served consecutively to his prior convictions. Defendantappeals, arguing the court erred by considering his prisondisciplinary record when making its sentencing determination. Weaffirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 2001, the State charged defendant withaggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(6) (West 2000)), alleginghe knowingly made physical contact of an insulting or provokingnature with a correctional institution employee who was engagedin the execution of his official duties. In November 2001, hisjury trial was held and the testimonies of several correctionalofficers and defendant were presented.

Specifically, correctional officer Timothy Carltontestified that, while escorting defendant to the prison's segregation yard, he noticed defendant's prison identification hadbeen impermissibly altered. Carlton attempted to return defendant to his cell in accordance with prison rules. However,defendant became combative and resistant, and the assistance ofanother correctional officer was required to subdue him. Oncedefendant was returned to his cell, he spat on Carlton throughthe steel-mesh door of his cell. Defendant's spit hit Carlton onthe right side of his face.

Two other correctional officers testified at defendant's trial and both corroborated the essential elements ofCarlton's testimony. By contrast, defendant testified on his ownbehalf and denied intentionally spitting on Carlton. Afterhearing the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the juryfound defendant guilty of the charged offense.

In December 2001, defendant's presentence investigationreport was filed. Among other things, the report noted defendant's significant criminal history as a juvenile offender withoffenses including and involving theft, burglary, and drugs. Further, it noted defendant's two adult convictions for drug-related offenses for which he was sentenced to two consecutivefour-year prison terms. Additionally, the report detaileddefendant's prison disciplinary record and stated as follows:

"Since [defendant's] current prisonsentence began, [on] June 2, 1998, he hasaccumulated approximately 150 citations orallegations of rule infractions. ***

***

*** [A] letter from Kevin Murphy, Casework Supervisor, *** indicated [defendant]has demonstrated unacceptable institutionaladjustment. Sixty-three of the sanctions[defendant] has received are considered majorincidents at the institutional level.

According to *** Murphy, *** defendantis scheduled to remain in disciplinary segregation until July 1, 2019, and his [']staffassaulter['] warning will not expire untilMarch 8, 2016. However, *** defendant'stentative release from [DOC] is April 18,2006. Therefore, if *** defendant acquiresany additional prison sentences he will remain in segregation."

The presentence investigation report also listed 19 specificinstitutional rules violated by defendant and the number of timeseach particular rule was violated.

On December 12, 2001, defendant's sentencing hearingwas held. The trial court stated it had reviewed the presentenceinvestigation report. It also inquired as to whether there wereany additions or corrections, and neither the State nor defendantrequested any. The State then recommended the maximum of fiveyears in prison to be served consecutively to defendant's existing sentences. By contrast, defendant requested the minimumsentence possible, arguing the maximum sentence available shouldbe reserved for cases involving actual physical harm.

In reaching its decision, the trial court stated itconsidered the evidence presented at trial, the statements at thesentencing hearing, the presentence investigation report, andstatutory factors in aggravation and mitigation. It furthernoted defendant (1) was 21 years old and had been institutionalized most of his life, (2) had both juvenile and adult records,(3) had an extensive prison disciplinary record, (3) did notgraduate from high school, (4) never held a job, and (5) had beendiagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. Finally, thecourt stated it believed a five-year prison sentence was fair andordered it to be served consecutively with defendant's existingsentences. Additionally, at the request of defendant's counsel,the court directed the circuit court clerk to file a notice ofappeal.

On appeal, this court noted the trial court's failureto properly admonish defendant after sentencing pursuant toSupreme Court Rule 605(a)(3)(B) (Official Reports Advance SheetNo. 21 (October 17, 2001), R. 605(a)(3)(B), eff. October 1, 2001)and remanded the cause with directions that the court give theproper admonishments and allow defendant an opportunity to file amotion to reconsider sentence. People v. Willis, No. 4-01-1102,slip order at 1 (June 11, 2003) (unpublished summary order underSupreme Court Rule 23). On remand, the court correctly admonished defendant and, in September 2003, defendant filed a motionfor reduction of sentence or for a new trial.

Relevant to this appeal, defendant's motion alleged thetrial court failed to consider that defendant had not previouslybeen convicted of a violent crime when making its sentencingdetermination. In October 2003, a hearing on defendant's motionwas held. The trial court noted defendant did not have any majorcriminal history with regard to violent crimes. However, itpointed to defendant's more than 150 violations of prison rulesand stated defendant's "history of violence and infractions inthe institution *** warrants the five-year sentence." The courtthen denied defendant's motion.

This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred byconsidering his prison disciplinary record when it sentenced himbecause the record was comprised of only mere allegations ofmisconduct. The State maintains defendant has forfeited thisissue as he failed to object to it at his sentencing hearing anddid not include it in his postsentencing motion.

To preserve a sentencing issue for appellate review, adefendant must raise the issue with the trial court in apostsentencing motion. People v. Reed, 177 Ill. 2d 389, 393, 686N.E.2d 584, 586 (1997).

In this case, the prison disciplinary record at issuewas contained in defendant's presentence investigation report. At defendant's sentencing hearing, the trial court specificallystated it had reviewed the report and asked both parties ifeither had any additions or corrections. Neither the State nordefendant objected to any portion of the report or requestedanything be added or corrected. Moreover, although defendantfiled a postsentencing motion, he did not allege the trial courtrelied on any improper factors when it sentenced him. The onlyissue raised by defendant's motion with regard to his sentencewas the court's alleged failure to consider that defendant hadnot previously been convicted of a violent crime. Thus, asdefendant failed to first raise this issue with the trial court,he has forfeited it on review.

Although we find this issue forfeited and no furtherinquiry is necessary, we nevertheless point out that the trialcourt did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant'sprison disciplinary record at sentencing. In People v. Willis,235 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 1073-74, 601 N.E.2d 1307, 1315 (1992),this court was called upon to determine, in part, whether thetrial court improperly considered a defendant's prisondisciplinary reports as an aggravating factor at his sentencing. Relying on People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482, 431 N.E.2d 344(1981), this court determined that since defendant failed tospecify why the disciplinary reports were unreliable and becausethey were relevant to his rehabilitative potential, the trialcourt did not abuse its discretion by considering them. Willis,235 Ill. App. 3d at 1074-75, 601 N.E.2d at 1315-16.

Similarly, in this case, defendant failed to object tothe disciplinary reports or allege they were unreliable. Additionally, the reports are relevant under the facts of thisparticular case. Defendant is a DOC inmate who was charged with,and convicted of, aggravated battery of a correctional officer. Thus, by considering his prison disciplinary record, the courthad the ability to determine defendant's rehabilitativepotential. In this instance, defendant's disciplinary recordevidenced his repeated inability to follow institutional rulesand a disregard for authority and the trial court did not err inconsidering it when sentencing defendant.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court'sjudgment.

Affirmed.

STEIGMANN and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.