Court Opinion

ID: 9726439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:49:13.284729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:27.251462
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE MILLS, specially concurring: One look at Odom’s prior record tells us he would hardly win the “Friendliest Neighbor-in-the-Block Award.” In 10 years he racked up 23 misdemeanor and traffic convictions, had been fined 15 times, jailed on 9 different occasions, placed on probation twice, and violated his probation once. At least nine of his past offenses involved physical violence, although none had apparently involved criminal damage to property. The intentional defacing and spattering of 8 to 10 feet of a neighbor’s fence is not to be tolerated, and people’s property must be respected. The offense of criminal damage to property is not to be denigrated or disparaged; it is not insignificant. I cannot agree with my colleagues that the legislative direction to impose probation has not been overcome on this record by the required showing that (1) imprisonment is needed to protect the public or (2) that probation would deprecate the seriousness of the conduct and be inconsistent with the ends of justice. Odom’s litany of “antisocial conduct” neatly clears that hurdle in my view. But the degree of the punishment — one year in jail — strikes me as excessive in view of the realistic damage inflicted in this case. The proper standard of review — as set out in People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 368 N.E.2d 882 — is whether the sentencing judge abused his discretion. I conclude that he did. And not only should he have another crack at sentencing, but I would not preclude any of the sentencing options found in his arsenal. I merely conclude that the punishment that was imposed is too great. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority.