Court Opinion

ID: 9540114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:12:54.370662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:37.896849
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE EBERSPACHER, dissenting: The record shows that at the time the trial judge resentenced defendant, he read in full to defendant a transcript of the remarks he had made when the original probation had been imposed. In so reading from that transcript, the judge stressed the fact that defendant had been promised a heavy sentence for violation of probation. The judge read that: “ ‘If you violate the provisions of your probation, I will see that you are brought back here and tried on the violation of probation.’ Do you remember me telling you that? Defendant Spencer: Yes, sir. The Court: ‘Being late [in] getting to the jail can be one of those conditions. Not showing up at all is definitely one of those conditions, and I will see that you are incarcerated in person in Menard or some other penitentiary, and it would [not] be a period of one to three years.” 060 By thus reading from the transcript the trial judge was clearly reiterating the promise of a severe sentence for a probation violation. The judge then ordered defendant’s probation revoked and promptly sentenced defendant. The judge then stated: “[Y]ou arbitrarily decided you wouldn’t appear any more [at jail on weekends]. You haven’t paid any of the money, $5.00 a day for your keep of any of the weekends that you showed up and when you did show up, 1,2,3,4,5,6 of the times, you showed up around being two and a half hours late and you were intoxicated each time when you showed up.” The judge made no reference to the nature and the circumstances of the original offense. His only comments were directed to two factors: (1) the promise of a heavy sentence for a violation of probation, and (2) the acts leading to the revocation. While consideration of the defendant’s acts which were in violation of probation was relevant to the court’s determination to revoke the probation, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the court also intended the severe sentence as direct punishment for those acts. The judge even appears to recognize that the record would reflect such a conclusion, when he states: “If the Court wants any reviewing of the Court, fully and completely, consider the remarks of the Court both at the time of original sentencing and here today.” Consequently, while a sentence higher than the minimum would not be inappropriate for defendant, the trial judge made it amply clear that a severe sentence was imposed for the defendant’s acts which led to a revocation, and which acts the trial court anticipated in granting probation at the time he accepted the negotiated plea on two armed robbery charges from a defendant who had previously had convictions on a felony theft charge and four misdemeanors, two of which were of a serious nature. To me, this is rather conclusive of the court’s abuse of discretion in sentencing which requires either a reduction or remand for resentencing under the proper standards.