Court Opinion

ID: 9744122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:54:15.08455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.868922
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, dissenting: The rule is firmly established that we have a responsibility to determine sua sponte whether we have jurisdiction to hear a case. (Clark v. State Police Merit Board (1972), 5 Ill. App. 3d 332, 282 N.E.2d 220.) Logic requires that we also determine sua sponte whether we have jurisdiction to make the disposition proposed. Here, the majority proposes to reduce the sentences to probation. Although I agree with much that is said in the comprehensive and scholarly majority opinion’s analysis of the legislature’s intent in enacting section 5 — 5—4.1 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5—4.1), the precedent of People ex rel. Stamos v. Jones (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 62, 237 N.E.2d 495, persuades me that the legislature did not have the power to authorize us to reduce sentences to probation. Stamos concerned the validity of legislation providing that stays pending appeal from sentences of imprisonment for forcible felonies could be obtained only from the reviewing court (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 121 — 6(b)). The supreme court explained that sections 2, 5, and7 of the Judicial Article of 1962 (Ill. Const. 1870, art. VI (1964), §§2,5 and 7) “placed responsibility for rules governing appeal in the Supreme Court, and not in the General Assembly.” (40 Ill. 2d 62, 66, 237 N.E.2d 495, 498.) The court noted that the legislation was in conflict with Supreme Court Rule 609(b) (36 Ill. 2d R. 609(b)) which then, as now, permitted either the trial or reviewing court to stay sentences pending appeal, even those where imprisonment was imposed for forcible felonies. Supreme Court Rule 615(b) (58 Ill. 2d R. 615(b)) sets forth the powers of the reviewing court in criminal cases and authorizes such court to, among other things, “reduce the punishment imposed by the trial court.” In People v. Bolyard (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 583, 338 N.E.2d 168, the supreme court, following People ex rel. Ward v. Moran (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 552, 301 N.E.2d 300, held that Rule 615(b) did not permit a reviewing court to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to one of probation even though probation was then, as now, a sentence (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5—3(d)). Section 5 — 5—4.1 of the Unified Code of Corrections is thus in conflict with Rule 615(b). The provisions of sections 2, 5, and 7 of the Judicial Article of 1962 referred to in Stamos have been incorporated in sections 4, 6 and 16 of article VI of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Here, as in Stamos, the General Assembly has purported to enact legislation “governing appeal” and here, as there, the legislation is in conflict with a Supreme Court Rule. The instant situation differs materially from that in Struckoff v. Struckoff (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 53, 389 N.E.2d 1170, where the supreme court held to be valid section 403(e) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 403(e)) requiring bifurcated hearings in contested dissolution cases. There, the legislation concerned trial and not appellate proceedings and was not in conflict with any Supreme Court Rule. Unlike the constitutional provisions in regard to the supreme court’s power to make rules concerning appeals (see Bonaguro, The Supreme Court’s Exclusive Rulemaking Authority, 67 Ill. B.J. 408 (1979); Fins, Impropriety of Illinois Legislature’s Infringement upon the Constitutional Rule-Making Authority of the Supreme Court, 66 Ill. B.J. 384 (1978)), neither the Constitution of 1870 nor the present one have ever contained any express grant to the supreme court to make rules governing procedure in the trial court except to the extent that it has such power by virtue of its administrative and supervisory powers. See People v. Jackson (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 252, 371 N.E.2d 602. I can only conclude that the portion of section 5 — 5—4.1 of the Unified Code of Corrections purporting to authorize us to reduce sentences of imprisonment to probation is invalid and that we have no jurisdiction to do so. I must dissent, therefore, from the portion of any judgment which does so. As the balance of section 5 — 5—4.1 does not concern the jurisdiction of the court, I do not sua sponte raise any question of its validity. Although I wrote the opinion in People v. Stoutenborough (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 489, 381 N.E.2d 415, where we applied the rule of People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 368 N.E.2d 882, in determining whether a sentence should be set aside, I am now persuaded by the majority that the General Assembly intended a broader standard of review of sentence than Perruquet would indicate. Nevertheless, I consider the phrase “rebuttable presumption that the sentence imposed by the trial judge is proper” to indicate a continued intention that considerable deference be given to the trial judge’s determination. I feel that the majority violates their own well-expressed principles of review of sentence in altering the sentence given defendant Craig Lee Cox by simply “substituting its notion of the appropriate sentence for that of the trial judge.” The majority correctly sets forth a number of mitigating factors. However, it considers the evidence as to whether the offense was the result of circumstances likely to recur conflicting but “on balance” weighing “in favor of the defendant.” The balancing of conflicting evidence at sentencing should be left primarily to the trial judge and we should defer to that determination unless it is clearly out of line. More specifically, the majority assumes that revocation of defendant Cox’s driver’s license will assure that he will not engage in further reckless drunken driving. Experience indicates that such revocations are difficult to enforce over a period of time. While it is true that the public would only be protected from defendant’s driving during the short period of his imprisonment, this is true in all cases of short imprisonment. At time of sentencing many, if not most, defendants indicate a willingness to cooperate if placed on probation and a remorse for their offense. The weight to be given to such expressions is peculiarly a matter for the trial judge. The provisions of section 5 — 6—1(a)(2) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 — 6—1(a)(2)) permitting imposition of a sentence more severe than probation or conditional discharge if those sentences “would deprecate the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and would be inconsistent with the ends of justice” is not precise. The majority, having determined that defendant could be rehabilitated by use of local resources, conclude that probation here would not be inconsistent with “the ends of justice.” As I do not agree that the trial court’s determination of Cox’s being a threat was improper, I need not decide whether I am in complete agreement with the statement quoted from People v. Knowles (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 30, 388 N.E.2d 261, in order to conclude that the trial judge here was not precluded from determining that a grant of probation would have been “inconsistent with the ends of justice.” The majority notes that the “appearance and oftentimes the fact” of “inequities” arising from disparate sentences have tended “to breed contempt and disrespect for the criminal justice system” in the eyes of both convicts and the public. No indication has been shown of a legislative intent to lessen disparity of sentences by equating all sentences to those that would be imposed by the most lenient trial courts or approved by the most lenient courts of review. Accordingly, a sentencing judge may consider whether his disposition is so lenient as to make the sentence disparately low in comparison to other sentences likely to be imposed by other judges for conduct and circumstances that would appear to the public to be similar to the case before the judge. The provisions of section 5 — 6—1(a)(2) concerning deprecation of the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and consistency with the ends of justice would appear to speak to this situation. Here, the defendant’s conduct was grossly reckless and it caused great damage. In indicating that punishment was required, the trial judge was likely speaking to the necessity of imposing a sentence that would be perceived as fair. The trial judge also indicated that he was considering the deterrent effect of the sentence. Section 5 — 5—3.2(a) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5—3.2(a)) lists as a factor to be accorded weight in determining whether to impose imprisonment the following: “(7) the sentence is necessary to deter others from committing the same crime.” I interpret the foregoing to indicate that deterrence is a proper consideration under section 5 — 6—1(a)(2). In ordering the Cox sentence to be reduced to probation subject to 3 months’ imprisonment, the majority recognized the need for some imprisonment. The difference between a sentence which includes 30 days’ imprisonment and one of 2 years’ where the defendant will be released in 1 year upon good behavior is somewhat a matter of degree. The action of the majority thus approaches a “tinkering” with the sentence. In any event I do not deem the presumption of the propriety of the sentence to have been rebutted. I would affirm that sentence. I agree with much that is said concerning the sentence of Sharon L. Stevens and would set it aside and remand for new sentencing. My only disagreement with the proposal of the majority is that, as I have explained, I do not think we have the power to reduce the sentence to probation.