Court Opinion

ID: 9861431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:59:42.163278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:26.369529
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority’s decision that requiring the defendant to maintain a warning sign on his property was not an appropriate condition of probation. Rather than simply leave undisturbed the remainder of the defendant’s sentence, however, I would vacate the sentence and remand the cause to the circuit court for a new sentencing hearing. The trial judge sentenced the defendant in August 1995 to a 30-month term of probation. Because of the amount of time remaining in that period — nearly a year — and because we have now eliminated an important condition of that disposition, I believe that the trial judge should have the opportunity to reconsider the defendant’s, sentence in light of our holding here, and with regard to the defendant’s conduct since the original hearing (see 730 ILCS 5/5 — 5—3(d) (West 1994)). CHIEF JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent. JUSTICE BILANDIC, also concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that the provision of the sentence requiring the erection of the sign was not reasonable. Rather than just vacating that portion of the sentence, I would vacate the entire sentence and remand to the circuit court for a new sentencing hearing consistent with the views expressed in the opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.