Court Opinion

ID: 9530195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:58:05.243786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:01.698278
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN, dissenting in part: I am in agreement with the majority opinion except for that part relating to the fine of *3000 as a condition of probation. I believe the fine is out of proportion to the nature of this offense and is unduly harsh. Section 5 — 9—1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 9—1(c)) provides certain basic guidelines which a trial court is required to consider in its imposition of a fine: “(c) In determining the amount and method of payment of a fine, the court shall consider: (1) the financial resources and future ability of the offender to pay the fine.” There was nothing in the trial court’s findings of fact at the sentencing hearing relating to defendant’s financial resources or to his future ability to pay this fine. Absent such findings I do not believe this fine can be sustained. In addition, a fine of *3000 is at odds with the theory underlying the trial court’s imposition of sentence in this case and runs counter to the guarantees of article I, section 11, of the 1970 Constitution of Illinois, which provides in pertinent part: “All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.” The probation and weekend imprisonment imposed by the trial court are designed to allow the defendant to support his dependents and to initiate reform while simultaneously repaying his debt to society. Yet the burden of such a large fine could potentially interfere with defendant’s progress by inducing criminal conduct if he is unable to legitimately pay off the fine. Accordingly, I believe that defendant’s fine of *3000 should be stricken as a condition of his probation.