People v. Kruse

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Kruse

346 N.E.2d 169, 37 Ill. App. 3d 475, 1976 Ill. App. LEXIS 2207

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 22, 1976

Docket12942, 12960 cons.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 346 N.E.2d 169 (People v. Kruse) 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. Kruse, 346 N.E.2d 169, 37 Ill. App. 3d 475, 1976 Ill. App. LEXIS 2207 (Ill. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN

delivered the opinion of the court:

On June 20, 1974, defendant was sentenced to 192 days for criminal damage to property and from 1 to 3 years for burglary. The crimes had been prosecuted separately under circuit court numbers 74-CF-82 and 74-CF-178 and defendant had been found guilty by a jury in each case. It is undisputed that the conduct leading to the charges was unrelated.

The trial judge specified that the sentences were to run consecutively and applied 192 days served prior to trial to the sentence on the misdemeanor charge. That sentence satisfied, the defendant was remanded to the Department of Corrections to serve out the 1- to 3-year sentence for burglary.

When multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, the sentencing court is to determine whether those sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—4.) However:

“(b) The court shall not impose a consecutive sentence unless, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, it is of the opinion that such a term is required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant 6 * (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—4(b).)

Under this court’s holding in People v. Dawson, 30 Ill. App. 3d 147, 332 N.E.2d 58, it was error to sentence defendant to consecutive terms in this case. Burglary is a Class 2 felony, for which any term in excess of 1 year but not to exceed 20 may be imposed. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 19 — 1, and ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(b)(3).) Since the aggregate of the two terms imposed here to be served consecutively was not as great as the sentence that could have been imposed for burglary alone, it cannot be said that consecutive sentencing was necessary in order to protect the public from continuing criminal propensities of the defendant.

Defendant’s convictions are affirmed, and the sentences modified to make the misdemeanor and felony sentences concurrent. Time served by defendant prior to sentencing must be credited to the combined sentence. The case is remanded to the circuit court with directions to issue an amended mittimus in accordance with the modifications provided herein.

Convictions affirmed. Remanded with directions.

GREEN, J., concurs.

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

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN

delivered the opinion of the court:

On June 20, 1974, defendant was sentenced to 192 days for criminal damage to property and from 1 to 3 years for burglary. The crimes had been prosecuted separately under circuit court numbers 74-CF-82 and 74-CF-178 and defendant had been found guilty by a jury in each case. It is undisputed that the conduct leading to the charges was unrelated.

The trial judge specified that the sentences were to run consecutively and applied 192 days served prior to trial to the sentence on the misdemeanor charge. That sentence satisfied, the defendant was remanded to the Department of Corrections to serve out the 1- to 3-year sentence for burglary.

When multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, the sentencing court is to determine whether those sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—4.) However:

“(b) The court shall not impose a consecutive sentence unless, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, it is of the opinion that such a term is required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant 6 * (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—4(b).)

Under this court’s holding in People v. Dawson, 30 Ill. App. 3d 147, 332 N.E.2d 58, it was error to sentence defendant to consecutive terms in this case. Burglary is a Class 2 felony, for which any term in excess of 1 year but not to exceed 20 may be imposed. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 19 — 1, and ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(b)(3).) Since the aggregate of the two terms imposed here to be served consecutively was not as great as the sentence that could have been imposed for burglary alone, it cannot be said that consecutive sentencing was necessary in order to protect the public from continuing criminal propensities of the defendant.

Defendant’s convictions are affirmed, and the sentences modified to make the misdemeanor and felony sentences concurrent. Time served by defendant prior to sentencing must be credited to the combined sentence. The case is remanded to the circuit court with directions to issue an amended mittimus in accordance with the modifications provided herein.

Convictions affirmed. Remanded with directions.

GREEN, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 N.E.2d 169, 37 Ill. App. 3d 475, 1976 Ill. App. LEXIS 2207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kruse-illappct-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack