Court Opinion

ID: 9738899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:05:03.743231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.142777
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting: The jury’s determination that the defendant was guilty of criminal damage to property of less than $150 is supported by the evidence, and I would affirm the conviction. The circuit court’s sentence of 9 months’ incarceration is excessive. A fine, suspended sentence or probation would have been just. As the dissent in the appellate court found, the criminal record of the defendant, who represented himself at trial, does not justify the sentence under the facts of this case (65 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 1018). The defendant, and the barn on the property he was leasing, were pelted with buckshot while he was clearing brush. The complainant and his companion, while hunting, may or may not have been on his property; but one or both fired buckshot, which struck the defendant and his barn, on or onto the property, around which were signs indicating the property was a wildlife refuge. It does not surprise me that the defendant might have been fearful of possibly irresponsible shooting, or that he was angered that his “animal refuge” was being violated. Overreact he did. Anger, however, might have been justified. Certainly he did not engage in the threat to personal harm that he was subjected to by the complainant. Moreover, two matters, not binding on the trial court, I find significant. The jury recommended that defendant be given a suspended sentence, and his Federal probation officer testified that defendant had not caused problems during his supervision. In People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 154, this court determined that a reviewing court may not alter a trial court’s sentence absent an abuse of judicial discretion. Such abuse exists here. Factors to be considered in sentencing arc “defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age” (68 Ill. 2d 149, 154). The record is devoid of evidence, apropos of these factors, which dictates so harsh a sentence. I am puzzled that a sentence this harsh could be given for a crime of this character, a crime involving no injury to the person. Fairness demands a remand for resentencing. I therefore dissent.