People v. Breen
| Decision Date | 26 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 47362,47362 |
| Citation | 342 N.E.2d 31,62 Ill.2d 323 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. William (Billie) BREEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Chicago (Robert P. Isaacson, Asst. Public Defender, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago , for the People.
John Beal, Chicago, for amicus curiae.
A complaint was filed in the circuit court of Cook County charging defendant, William (Billie) Breen, with theft, in violation of section 16--1(a) of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 16--1(a)). On January 9, 1974, after a bench trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 90 days in the House of Correction. The defendant then indicated a willingness to repay over a period of a 'couple of months' the money allegedly taken, and the trial court vacated its finding of guilty, placing defendant on 'social service supervision, with restitution of one hundred eighty dollars, until February 7, 1975.' The Appellate Court for the First District dismissed defendant's appeal, holding that since the trial court vacated the finding of guilty and sentence, the matter was still pending in the trial court, and there was no final judgment from which to appeal. (26 Ill.App.3d 547, 325 N.E.2d 738.) We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal.
We view this case as an appropriate one for the exercise of our supervisory authority. (Ill.Const., art. VI, sec. 16; Supreme Court Rule 315(a), (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, par. 315(a)); Brokaw Hospital v. Circuit Court of McLean County (1972), 52 Ill.2d 182, 287 N.E.2d 472.) Accordingly, we need not consider the question of the finality of the order from which an appeal was sought.
The practice of placing a defendant on 'supervision,' as disclosed by the brief of Amicus, Beal, apparently is fairly common. In one form, social service supervision, a defendant is ordered to report regularly to a social service agency during the period of his supervision, generally six months to a year, during which time his case is continued. When that period expires without further incident, the defendant is discharged from supervision and the criminal charge dismissed. In another form, court supervision, the case is similarly continued during the period of supervision, but the defendant is under no obligation other than to refrain from further criminal conduct. Apparently under both forms of supervision, the trial judge hears the evidence, satisfies himself of guilt and then either refrains from entering a finding of guilty or enters a finding, immediately vacates it and enters an order for supervision. Thus, following discharge from supervision and dismissed of the charge, a defendant has no record of conviction and, in certain instances, may have the arrest expunged from police records pursuant to section 5 of the act relating to criminal identification (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 206--5). It is represented in the Amicus brief and not elsewhere denied that revocation of supervision and sentencing is virtually unheard of.
Viewed realistically, supervision with conditions attached (reporting, restitution, Etc.) involves the imposition of a penalty despite the fact that defendant has not been found guilty, or an earlier finding of guilt has been vacated. We are aware of no authority permitting a court to impose such obligations in this fashion. (See, E.g., People v. Penn (1922), 302 Ill. 488, 495, 135 N.E. 92.) This court has held that 'the nature, character and extent of the penalties for a particular criminal offense are maters for the legislature.' (People v. Smith (1958), 14 Ill.2d 95, 97, 150 N.E.2d 815, 817.) Speaking on the separation of powers in the Federal constitutional scheme, the United States Supreme Court has similarly announced that it is 'indisputable * * * that the authority to define and fix the punishment for crime is legislative.' (Ex parte United States (1916), 242 U.S. 27, 42, 37 S.Ct. 72, 74, 61 L.Ed. 129, 140.) Under the Unified Code of Corrections, the only authorized sentences are probation, conditional discharge, periodic imprisonment, imprisonment, and fine. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 1005--5--3(d).) In only two very specific instances has the legislature broadened the range of authorized dispositions to encompass supervision not based upon a prior, still existing judgment. One involves first offenders found guilty of a Class 3 felony for possession of a controlled substance. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1974 Supp., ch. 56 1/2, par. 1410.) The other involves proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 37, par. 704--7.
There is no merit in the contention that the judiciary possesses the inherent authority to impose upon an unconvicted defendant 'supervision' or any similar obligations except as they might be reasonably necessary conditions of bounds or recognizances (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 110--10), despite seemingly contrary language in People v. Parr (1970),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDunn v. Williams
... ... McDunn notes that this court has used its supervisory authority in the past when trial courts were not acting within their jurisdiction (People v. Williams (1988), 124 Ill.2d 300, ... Page 394 ... [189 Ill.Dec. 426] 124 Ill.Dec. 577, 529 N.E.2d 558; Doherty v. Caisley (1984), 104 Ill.2d 72, 83 Ill.Dec. 361, 470 N.E.2d 319; People v. Breen (1976), 62 Ill.2d 323, 342 N.E.2d 31), where cases were not necessarily appealable, but compelling reasons existed for review (Crane Paper Stock Co ... ...
-
People v. Lang
...specific authority from the legislature may not act. See In re Washington (1976), 65 Ill.2d 391, 359 N.E.2d 133; People v. Breen (1976), 62 Ill.2d 323, 342 N.E.2d 31; Harper College Faculty Senate v. Board of Trustees (1st Dist. 1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 443, 366 N.E.2d IV. • 12, 13 Having dete......
-
Spencer v. Whyte
...cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 130, 66 L.Ed.2d 55 (1980); State v. Pakula, 113 Ariz. 122, 547 P.2d 476 (1976); People v. Breen, 62 Ill.2d 323, 342 N.E.2d 31 (1976); State v. Wright, 202 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 1972); State ex rel. Douglas v. Buder, 485 S.W.2d 609 (Mo.1972), rev'd on other g......
-
People v. Garrett
...appellate court's judgment--even though such review is not favored. (107 Ill.2d Rules 315(a), 318(b), 612(b); cf. People v. Breen (1976), 62 Ill.2d 323, 326, 342 N.E.2d 31 (when case was appropriate for exercise of supervisory authority, finality of order from which appeal was sought did no......