Court Opinion

ID: 9745163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:39:16.30667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.058137
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the affirmance of this conviction. Remendment for further sentencing seems unnecessary in view of the authority of this court to reduce the sentence that was imposed. A reduction of sentence is warranted. A sentence of not less than four years nor more than fourteen years in the penitentiary is excessive in view of the offense and the offender. While the offense is forgery, the instrument involved is a $6.00 check. The offender has one prior felony conviction — forgery of a $47.74 check in 1966. He was on parole at the time of the instant offense. It is at least intimated by the record that the severity of the sentence was affected by the court’s determination drat “* * * circumstances of perjury and so forth.” arose during the trial of the case. At least it could be argued that such was an item considered in aggravation. See People v. Moriarty (1962), 25 Ill.2d 565, 185 N.E.2d 688, which has some language discussing the point. In the case of People v. Crews, cited in the majority opinion, the remandment was for the purpose of correcting procedures and evidentiary matters arising in the hearing in aggravation and mitigation. Such issue is not present here no, as I understand it, does the majority opinion contemplate any further evidence in aggravation or mitigation in the trial court. This court should affirm the convcition but reduce the sentence, both the minimum and the maximum, acting under and pursuant to the authority of what is now Supreme Court Rule 615 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110A, sec. 615).