Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. RUSSELL GAZELLE, Appellee
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1995-03-23
Citations: 165 Ill. 2d 93
Docket Number: No. 77059
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. RUSSELL GAZELLE, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports, Second Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 93–100

Head Matter:
(No. 77059.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. RUSSELL GAZELLE, Appellee.
Opinion filed March 23, 1995.
NICKELS, J., joined by FREEMAN and McMORROW, JJ., concurring.
Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Charles G. Reynard, State’s Attorney, of Bloomington (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman and Elliott Turpin, of the Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People.
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Springfield, for appellee.

Opinion:
JUSTICE HEIPLE
delivered the opinion of the court:
The defendant, Russell Gazelle, pled guilty to burglary in McLean County in June 1990 and was placed on probation for 42 months. One of the conditions of defendant's probation was that defendant not violate a criminal statute in any jurisdiction. In March of 1992, he was convicted of nine counts of burglary and nine counts of theft in Piatt County and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary on those charges. Thereafter, in June of 1992, a supplémental petition was filed in McLean County to revoke the McLean County probation. The petition was premised on the Piatt County convictions. Attached to the petition was a copy of the records from Piatt County relative to the defendant's conviction and sentence there.
At the hearing on the petition to revoke defendant's probation, defendant was admonished by the judge that he could be sentenced to the penitentiary for the McLean County burglary for a term of not less than three or more than seven years. The defendant indicated that he understood and then admitted to the allegations of the petition. A sentencing hearing was held and the defendant was sentenced to a penitentiary term of five years to be served consecutively to the Piatt County sentence.
On appeal, the defendant objected to the sentence. He claimed that he was misinformed by the judge. He understood the judge's explanation to mean that he could receive a maximum of seven years in prison but not two five-year consecutive sentences, which would be,, in effect, 10 years. The appellate court agreed with the defendant. (259 Ill. App. 3d 462.) It held that in order to protect a defendant's due process rights, a trial court must inform the defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentences before the defendant admits to the allega tions in a petition to revoke probation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order revoking the defendant's probation and remanded the cause for a new revocation hearing. We reverse and reinstate the defendant's sentence.
We acknowledge that the explanation given by the trial judge in the probation revocation proceedings may have misled the defendant as to his sentencing exposure. The defendant may have reasoned that, with a five-year sentence already imposed in Piatt County, the longest sentence he could have received from the McLean County proceedings would be an additional two years. However, the defendant's possible confusion is immaterial to the outcome of this case. His admission to the Piatt County convictions in the McLean County revocation proceedings added nothing. Whether the defendant denied the petition, stood mute, or admitted the allegations, the outcome would not have changed. He was on probation for burglary. He had a subsequent conviction for burglary in another county. His probation was violated by that subsequent burglary and he had no defense to the petition to revoke his probation. We can and do take judicial notice of the defendant's convictions in both McLean and Piatt Counties which are part of the record in this case. Reversal and remand of the McLean County probation revocation proceedings for a new revocation hearing would change nothing and would be a waste of judicial time and manpower.
Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court of McLean County is affirmed.
Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed.