Court Opinion

ID: 9535017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:39.852626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:09.364484
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mme JUSTICE SPOMER delivered the opinion of the court: In its petition for rehearing the State says: “The People did not concede that the instant sentence could be justified, if at all, only as periodic imprisonment. The People offered alternative theories of justification, either periodic imprisonment or ordinary imprisonment as a condition of probation.” Nowhere in its written brief did the State raise such alternative theories. It stated one issue only: “The trial court properly acted within its powers in sentencing defendant to two years’ probation, with the condition of sixty days’ periodic imprisonment at the end of the two years.” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, it argued in the brief that “the court was entitled to impose periodic imprisonment as a condition of imprisonment” and that “it is apparent that the instant sentence is nothing more than a sentence of probation, with periodic imprisonment a condition of that probation.” (Emphasis added.)  While we have some reservations concerning the State’s interpretation of statements made at oral argument, we nevertheless choose to clarify the position of the majority on this issue. We hold that the 60-day sentence imposed in this case cannot be justified either as periodic imprisonment or imprisonment as a condition of probation for the reasons stated in the opinion. Assuming arguendo that the sentence were one of ordinary imprisonment as a condition of probation and the trial court had jurisdiction to modify it after the 30-day period elapsed, it would be legally improper to require such imprisonment at the end of the probation period. How can the rehabilitation of a repentant offender be accomplished if after a period of 22 months’ good behavior on probation, she must disrupt her home, her work, her family, and the entire scheme of events which she has successfully undertaken, to serve time in jail? There is no benefit to her or to the public from such sentence. If at the time of sentencing she were a danger to the public or if granting her unconditional probation would deprecate the seriousness of her conduct, the ends of justice would best be served by imprisonment first, then probation. Lastly, it appears that the trial court never intended that the sentence be served, but imposed it in an effort to exhort defendant to comply with the conditions of her probation. However, upon defendant’s failure to do so, proceedings for revocation of probation would be an available remedy. The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied. KARNS, J., concurs. HARRISON, J., dissents.