Court Opinion

ID: 9711032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:23:07.405488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:01.759196
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: When monetary losses resulting from crime reach the magnitude involved here, the task of setting forth a fair and workable procedure by which the criminal is required to make restitution is almost impossible. I consider the trial judge to have made a good attempt to do so here. However, I share the thought, implied in the majority opinion, that this can only be handled satisfactorily in civil proceedings. I concur in the majority’s decision (1) to affirm the portion of the judgment of sentence requiring the defendant to make restitution, and (2) to modify the amount of periodic payments required to 10 percent of. defendant’s income for that period. I consider the trial judge’s order that defendant pay a stated sum with the understanding that he would not be sanctioned as long as he paid as much as he could to have been fair but agree with the majority that endless dispute was the likely result of such a procedure. I do not agree that the portion of the restitution order requiring reimbursement to the residents of DeWeese Hall whose property was burned was erroneous. In Mahle, a defendant was convicted of several counts charging deceptive practices whereby he had wrongfully obtained $387. He was placed on probation conditioned upon his making restitution not only for the $387 but also for other sums he was stated to have obtained by issuing other fraudulent checks. The supreme court held the requirement that the defendant make restitution for the additional checks issued to have been erroneous. The court described the sums involved in the additional checks as being “unrelated” and “extraneous” to the charges before the trial court. (57 Ill. 2d 279,284,312 N.E.2d 267,271.) The Mahle situation would be similar to the situation here if the trial court had also ordered defendant to make restitution for the damages incurred at Ford Hall. Here, the damage to the residents of DeWeese Hall resulted from the very conduct set forth in the charges. Thus, the sums defendant was ordered to pay to these students was related and not extraneous to these charges. Notably, the Mahle court did not say that the restitution ordered must be to a victim named in the charges nor did that court say that the restitution had to be for damage to property described in the charges. The connection between the charges and the injury for which restitution was ordered was sufficient here. Accordingly, I dissent from the modification of the portion of the judgment setting forth the amount of restitution to be paid and the persons to whom it was to be paid.