People v. Clayton

• Decision Date: 15 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-403,76-403
• Citation: 51 Ill.App.3d 682,366 N.E.2d 386,9 Ill.Dec. 129
• Parties: , 9 Ill.Dec. 129 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky CLAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 386

366 N.E.2d 386

51 Ill.App.3d 682, 9 Ill.Dec. 129

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky CLAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-403.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

July 15, 1977.

Michael J. Rosborough, Deputy Defender, Michael Yovovich, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Fifth Judicial Dist., Mount Vernon, for defendant-appellant.

Clyde L. Kuehn, State's Atty., St. Clair County, Belleville, Phyllis J. Perko, Principal Atty., Martin P. Moltz, Staff Atty., Ill. State's Attys. Ass'n, Statewide Appellate Assistance Service, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.

JONES, Justice.

Defendant appeals a three to nine year sentence following revocation of probation. Defendant's sole contention is that the sentence imposed was arbitrary and in pursuance of a personal sentencing policy of the trial court rather than in conformance with the Code of Corrections. We must agree.

On September 19, 1975 defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the offense of theft of property valued in excess of $150 and was placed on probation for a period of two years. Eight months later a petition to revoke probation was filed in which it was alleged that defendant had committed a burglary. At the hearing on the petition it was established that defendant, accompanied by another, broke into the home of a neighbor and took a lawnmower and a bicycle. The court properly found that defendant had violated his probation and revoked it.

At the sentence hearing the State waived presentation of evidence in aggravation but the prosecutor stated: "I would merely point out to the court its announced policy towards people who commit subsequent crimes after having been placed on probation in the first instance." The defendant did not present any evidence in mitigation but his attorney, in remarks to the court, stated: "The only point that I would point out to the court is that Mr. Clayton is 18 years old and, as such, I think the court does have an opportunity to consider rehabilitation more than in some other types of cases. I would request the Court to depart from its usual policy of an extensive sentence of three to nine or larger and in this particular case, give this defendant a sentence of one to three, and I would request that this defendant would best be served and I think it would be in the interest of society if the Court would also recommend that his incarceration be at some institution other than Menard."

In imposing sentence, the court made the following remarks:

"I think some of the points that Mr. Hoffman made on your behalf are points that he should make as your attorney, and in a sense are well taken. However, if probation is to mean anything in this County, then the people who are put on probation must abide by the rules and must abide by the terms of their probation. I know you say that you didn't commit this burglary, but I have found sufficient evidence and I do believe that you committed this burglary based on the evidence. And accordingly, I have no alternative at this time in my judgment but to sentence you in accordance with what I think the policy should be for people like yourself who violate the terms of their probation. As I indicated to you when I placed you on probation, probation is a privilege. And when it's violated, the results are disasterous for the person who does violate it. Accordingly, I hereby sentence you to the Illinois Department of Corrections for a period of not less than three years nor more than nine years, there to remain until discharged according to law."

When a defendant who has been...