People v. Edmond

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Edmond

313 N.E.2d 662, 20 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2549

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 3, 1974

DocketNo. 12342

StatusPublished

This text of 313 N.E.2d 662 (People v. Edmond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Edmond, 313 N.E.2d 662, 20 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2549 (Ill. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant appeals from the sentence of 4 to 12 years imposed after being convicted of burglary in a bench trial. The sole issue presented for review is whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing an excessive sentence.

Burglary, as defined in section 19 — 1 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 19 — 1), is a Class 2 felony which is punishable under the Unified Code of Corrections for any term in excess of 1 year and not exceeding 20 years. The Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(c) (3)) provides that a court shall not sentence a defendant to serve greater than the minimum term of 1 year unless the nature and circumstances of the case require a higher minimum term.

The record shows that defendant was 28 years old. In determining this sentence, the record shows that the court observed and commented upon the nature of defendant’s criminal record, including a conviction for burglary in 1963, upon which defendant served 3 years under a sentence of 1 to 3, and convictions for burglary in 1970, with concurrent sentences of 1 to 10 years. Two other burglary charges then pending were dismissed. This offense occurred within 2 months following the release of defendant on parole in 1972. In the light of such factors considered by the court a potential for early rehabilitation is not readily apparent. Hiere is nothing which suggests that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. People v. Barge, 7 Ill.App.3d 721, 288 N.E.2d 492.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CRAVEN and SIMIKINS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant appeals from the sentence of 4 to 12 years imposed after being convicted of burglary in a bench trial. The sole issue presented for review is whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing an excessive sentence.

Burglary, as defined in section 19 — 1 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 19 — 1), is a Class 2 felony which is punishable under the Unified Code of Corrections for any term in excess of 1 year and not exceeding 20 years. The Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(c) (3)) provides that a court shall not sentence a defendant to serve greater than the minimum term of 1 year unless the nature and circumstances of the case require a higher minimum term.

The record shows that defendant was 28 years old. In determining this sentence, the record shows that the court observed and commented upon the nature of defendant’s criminal record, including a conviction for burglary in 1963, upon which defendant served 3 years under a sentence of 1 to 3, and convictions for burglary in 1970, with concurrent sentences of 1 to 10 years. Two other burglary charges then pending were dismissed. This offense occurred within 2 months following the release of defendant on parole in 1972. In the light of such factors considered by the court a potential for early rehabilitation is not readily apparent. Hiere is nothing which suggests that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. People v. Barge, 7 Ill.App.3d 721, 288 N.E.2d 492.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CRAVEN and SIMIKINS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.E.2d 662, 20 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edmond-illappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack