Court Opinion

ID: 9519514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:17:52.847052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:28.671198
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SEIDENFELD delivered the opinion of the court: In his petition for rehearing which we granted, defendant argues that in People v. Manning, 71 Ill. 2d 132 (1978), the supreme court modified the rule which was established in People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977) relative to concurrent sentencing. Specifically defendant refers to the Supreme Court’s quotation of Braden v. United States, 270 F. 441, 444 (8th Cir. 1920), which states in part: “If twelve articles were all taken at the same time and place, we do not think it would be competent to charge the thief with twelve different larcenies.” (71 Ill. 2d 132, 135.) From this dicta defendant contends that since both the taking of the money and the taking of the credit card and driver’s license occurred in a single incident, the defendant is subject to only one conviction for armed robbery. We do not agree that the rule expressed in People v. King was modified in People v. Manning. To analyze the argument, however, we find it necessary to discuss additional facts which appear in the record. One count of armed robbery is based upon the driver’s license and Master Charge card which were taken from the presence of the victim. In this regard the complaining witness testified that the defendant asked her where her purse was located. Initially she could not remember but eventually she indicated that it might be in her car. Defendant left and returned with her purse. After dumping the contents on the bed he stated, “You really don’t have any money do you.” The police eventually recovered the victim’s purse and at that time it was determined her driver’s license and Master Charge card were missing. The second count of armed robbery was based upon money which was taken from the victim’s person. In this regard the complaining witness testified that defendant began to search the clothes she was wearing. At this point she told him she had some cash in the pocket of her bluejeans and defendant took approximately $60 in cash out of the pocket. These facts demonstrate that the cash which was taken from a pocket in the victim’s clothing, from her person, did not take place at the same time and place as the taking of the driver’s license and Master Charge card. This is also not an instance “where more than one offense is carved from the same physical act” (66 Ill. 2d 551, 566). We therefore reaffirm our holding that the trial court properly entered concurrent sentences for both counts of armed robbery. BOYLE and NASH, JJ., concur.