Court Opinion

ID: 9731125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:34:44.308453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:13.625299
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of the court: A petition by the State for modification of our opinion, or alternatively for rehearing, requires comment.  The People first contend that our opinion is “a thinly veiled mandate that probation be given to the defendant.” This statement is unjustified. By citation of and comment on three pertinent cases decided by the supreme court, our opinion made it eminently clear that it was sharply limited to a determination of whether the trial judge exercised discretion. In the closing paragraphs of the opinion, we expressly repeated that it was not to “be construed as directing that defendant be admitted to probation.” We also stated that the cause was remanded “for resentencing in accordance with law.” Thus, although no clarification is necessary, we will reiterate once more that our direction to the trial court contemplates only a careful and thorough study of the matter by a trial judge in accordance with the statutory mandate and an exercise of discretion regarding the sentence. The State objects to our statement that all of the separate factors in the applicable statute should be considered as a prerequisite to sentencing. It is correct that the statute expresses three separate factors disjunctively. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 1005—6—1(a).) However, this does not alter the fact that all of these matters may require and should receive consideration. This is true even though it is correct that an affirmative finding regarding any one of these factors is sufficient to justify imprisonment.  In the case before us, there is nothing in this record to show that the trial judge gave consideration to any of these important and essential matters. The court merely stated that “considering the facts of this case, nature of the offense, * * * ” the court did not “have a mind” to limit the sentence to probation or to probation coupled with a term of imprisonment. The court also stated that the problems arising out of such a sentence “would be of great magnitude” to defendant and his family. Under no circumstances can we construe this record as reflecting a proper exercise of discretion by the trial court. The petition for modification or alternatively for rehearing is denied. O’CONNOR and BUA, JJ., concur.