Court Opinion

ID: 9739100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:46.169007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.016578
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE GREIMAN, specially concurring: This special concurrence is written not to disagree with the majority’s holdings on any issue but to address the consequences of a defective presentence investigation report. The majority opinion correctly holds that the facts of this case necessitate remandment for resentencing under the plain error doctrine because the presentence report did not contain defendant’s criminal history as required by statute. To determine an appropriate sentence, a sentencing court should clearly be apprised of defendant’s status as either a first-time offender or recidivist. However, the absence of a presentence report or the failure of such report to include all factors enumerated in the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 3—2) does not automatically require remandment for resentencing. The parties have a duty to bring to the attention of the sentencing authority any alleged deficiency or inaccuracy in the presentence report. (People v. Meeks (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 524, 533, 411 N.E.2d 9.) Accordingly, the issue of a defective presentence report can be deemed waived where a party fails to object to the trial court about any alleged deficiency or inaccuracy in the report. Meeks, 81 Ill. 2d at 533 (where the presentence report at issue did not fully comply with the statutory requirements, resentencing was not required because defense counsel failed to preserve the error for review); see also People v. Madej (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 201, 478 N.E.2d 392; People v. Godinez (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 47, 434 N.E.2d 1121 (and cases cited therein); People v. Laramore (1987), 163 Ill. App. 3d 783, 516 N.E.2d 401 (the defendant was found to have waived any errors in the presentence report by failing to object at the hearing); People v. Dye (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 125, 438 N.E.2d 211 (the defendant, by failing to object, waived his contention that the report was untimely or insufficient). In addition, where no formal written presentence report was available to the sentencing court, remandment for resentencing was not ordered because the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of the report. People v. Gacy (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 1, 107-08, 468 N.E.2d 1171 (in rejecting the defendant’s argument that resentencing was required, the supreme court observed that it saw “no basis upon which to find that a formal written presentence investigation report would alter the judge’s determination on the facts of this case”); People v. Calhoun (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 829, 837, 494 N.E.2d 498 (this court held that the trial court’s error in failing to order a presentence report was harmless because the “omission of statutorily required procedure in a sentencing hearing, when the omission amounts to a technical or formal error which does not prejudice defendant, does not require remand for resentencing”); People v. Casper (1981), 97 Ill. App. 3d 787, 423 N.E.2d 510 (the deficiencies in the presentence report did not warrant remandment in light of the trial court’s well considered conclusion that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary).