Court Opinion

ID: 9738311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:49:42.560232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:40:17.392304
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER specially concurring: I concur in the result reached by the court as well as the reasoning because as indicated in my special concurring opinion in People v. Angulo, 6 Ill.App.3d 475, there is no way of justifying or reviewing a sentence imposed after probation has been revoked without considering the subsequent misconduct. Decisions which suggest that a probation violator is not being punished for the misconduct which resulted in the probation revocation ignore reality in order to avoid other problems which are obscured by such rationalization. The principal problem is whether we are justified in continuing to approve the summary nature of the probation revocation proceeding and its limited procedural due process. There can be little doubt that a person found guilty of a criminal offense occupies a position different from a person merely accused of an offense but so far as constitutional safeguards are concerned such convicted person should continue to be entitled to constitutional protections except in so far as they may not be applicable or appropriate to the changed status. Although not raised as a specific issue on this appeal the fact that the punishment and its justification is related directly to the subsequent misconduct calls attention to the procedure by which the subsequent misconduct is established. If the probationer is quantitatively punished for his subsequent misbehavior in itself amounting to a criminal offense, the question arises as to what standards should be applicable. After sentencing defendant to a term of from 3 to 5 years in the penitentiary the court made the following observation, “* * * let me explain specifically, that I fix this penalty for the violation of the provision that he not disobey any penal laws and the finding of the Court that he has disobeyed the law insofar as unlawful use of weapons. I could also indicate that I did find that if Paragraphs ‘A’ and ‘B’ alone had been proved, I would have fixed a penalty at six months in the County Jail, but that I will let that penalty run concurrently with the sentence of three to five years for the other violation.” About a week later the judge attempted to clarify or explain the foregoing quotation by indicating the individual penalties were specified to avoid any problem which might arise if on review the evidence of illegal use of a weapon was deemed insufficient. Both the quotation and the judge’s explanation demonstrate the clear relationship between the sentence imposed and the misconduct for which it was imposed. In Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 88 S.Ct. 254, 389 U.S. 128, 19 L.Ed.2d 336, the Court observed; “The two foregoing factors assume increased significance when it is considered that, as happened in these two cases, the eventual imposition of sentence on the prior plea of guilty is based on the alleged commission of offenses for which the accused is never tried. In sum, we do not question the authority of the State of Washington to provide for a deferred sentencing procedure coupled with its probation provisions. Indeed, it appears to be an enlightened step forward. All we decide here is that a lawyer must be afforded at this proceeding whether it be labeled a revocation of probation or a deferred sentencing.” The foregoing statement recognizes a basic dilemma in the probation revocation system namely that a person is being punished for criminal offenses of which he has not been convicted thereby at least raising the procedural due process questions. Unlike other states Illinois has for some time both by decision and statute required representation by counsel or waiver thereof at probation revocation proceedings indicating that our standards are in a course of evolution along with other aspects of our sentencing procedures. (People v. Coffman, 83 Ill.App.2d 22, 227 N.E.2d 108.) I think this case illustrates the need for re-examination of our probation revocation system where subsequent criminal offenses are involved.