Court Opinion

ID: 9525477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:04:07.086837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:59.167260
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the ruling of the majority affirming the revocation of probation. I agree that the sentences imposed are improper but rather than reducing the sentences, I would remand for resentencing as this court did in Strickland. I, therefore, dissent from the reduction of the sentences. In Strickland this court recognized that People v. Ford (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 291, 280 N.E.2d 728, permits the trial judge in imposing sentence upon revocation of probation to consider the defendant’s conduct on probation to the extent that the conduct bears upon the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. We followed that principle in People v. Elsner (1975), 27 Ill. App. 3d 957, 327 N.E.2d 592, and People v. Tatum (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 251, 330 N.E.2d 281. In Tatum we noted that subsequent misconduct of the probationer which is related to the probationer’s “history and character” is required to be considered in sentencing by section 5—8—1(c)(3) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005—8-1(c)(3)). Here, the defendant has been convicted of two burglaries. Evidence of his subsequent conduct of stealing would justify a determination by the trial judge that his potential for rehabilitation is poor. The majority reduce the sentences for the burglaries to near minimum concurrent 2- to 6-year terms — the same sentences recommended by the State at the time defendant was sentenced to probation. The fact that defendant was originally placed on probation does not require his sentence upon revocation to be limited to a near minimum term. For us to reduce these sentences to the extent done here is for us to entirely substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge. The difference between sentencing a person for improper conduct and considering that conduct as it bears upon rehabilitation potential as that factor, in turn, bears upon the proper length of sentence is most subtle. Because of the judge’s statements and the severity of the sentence imposed, however, I agree with the majority that the trial judge gave improper consideration to the misconduct of defendant on probation. I would remand so that he may impose sentence giving proper consideration to that conduct. The power of reviewing courts to reduce sentences is usually exercised when those sentences are found to be excessive in severity. In those cases the reviewing court usually has the benefit of the trial court’s judgment of the appropriate sentence based upon proper factors. Where the sentence is found to have been based upon consideration of improper factors, the reviewing court does not have the .benefit of that judgment by the trial court. To reduce sentence under those circumstances is to make the reviewing corut the sentencing court. The reduction of the sentence here is to make the sentence that which this court would have imposed had it been the trial court.