People v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 29 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-16,79-16 |
| Citation | 78 Ill.App.3d 989,34 Ill.Dec. 510,398 N.E.2d 185 |
| Parties | , 34 Ill.Dec. 510 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Peter Carusona, Robert Agostinelli, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Rita Kennedy, John X. Breslin, State's Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, Ottawa, Michael M. Mihm, State's Atty., Peoria, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant after trial by jury in the circuit court of Peoria County was found guilty of the offense of armed robbery and was sentenced to a determinate term of six years of imprisonment.
During the trial of the defendant the evidence established that she was a prostitute plying her vocation in the city of Peoria on the evening of April 25, 1978, when she encountered David Wood, who was driving around in his brother's pick-up truck. It was the testimony of Wood, the alleged victim, that he was solicited as a customer by the defendant. Wood indicated that he had $30.00 so the defendant accompanied him in the truck to an empty lot. Upon arriving at this location Wood testified that he left the truck for the purpose of relieving himself and upon his return advised the defendant that he had changed his mind, whereupon the defendant pulled a knife from her purse, threatened the victim with it and demanded his billfold. He further testified that the defendant poked a hole in the seat of his truck and subsequent testimony of a police officer was that he observed a small puncture type hole in the front seat. It was the further testimony of Wood that the defendant obtained his billfold, which was subsequently returned to him by the police, to whom it had been delivered by a party who found the same approximately three or four blocks from where he first encountered the defendant. The thirty dollars was missing but other contents i. e. identification papers, photographs, etc., were in the wallet.
The defendant testified in her own behalf and admitted that she was a prostitute, that she had "dated" Wood in the past and that she agreed to accompany him to the vacant lot. It was the defendant's testimony that Wood attempted to force her head down, at which time she screamed, broke free and jumped from the truck. She stated that she threatened to go to the police but that Wood pleaded with her not to, claiming that he was drunk and only joking, after which he stated that he would give her the promised money for wasting her time, but that he then denied he had any money and after a further argument she walked away still claiming that she would go to the police. The defendant categorically denied the charge of robbing Wood.
The defendant was arrested shortly after the incident in question and a search failed to yield the presence of a knife or the victim's wallet.
Following closing arguments the jury retired for two and one-half hours and then returned to open court and indicated that a verdict could not be reached. The trial court then over objections by the defense gave the Prim instruction (People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill.2d 62, 289 N.E.2d 601) to the jury. One hour and five minutes later the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of armed robbery.
Hearings were had on post-trial motions and sentencing during which defense counsel challenged that portion of the Class X legislation which mandated a minimum term of six years for an armed robbery conviction. The trial court found the challenged law constitutional and imposed the mandatory sentence. During the post-trial proceedings the trial court made observations pertinent to the issue raised in this appeal and those observations are as follows:
"THE COURT: I will rule on this as follows, that I will find the present law of the State of Illinois Constitutional based upon these Illinois cases. I will state for the record that under the law, under this law, I cannot give, even consider at all, probation. That if I was allowed to in this case, I would give it serious consideration.
Secondly, I cannot in this case give any consideration to a term in the Department of Corrections for less than six years. I think if I were allowed to do it, if I decided not to give probation, I would not sentence her to any greater term than three years. I think this should be appealed, and I think the issue should be presented to the Appellate Court. I feel that I am bound by the decisions of the Appellate Court, and if they're going to strike down the Class X or strike down the giving of minimum sentences or non-probationable sentences, that should be done by the Appellate or Supreme Court.
THE COURT: Then I will impose a sentence on the Defendant for six years upon her in the Department of Corrections. I like to try and make the punishment fit the crime, and I think in this case because of her character and because of the circumstances of the crime, that she is being definitely over-punished for this offense. I don't believe that her punishment in any way fits the crime. And I want that to appear of record, and if I had it within my power, I would sentence her to a much reduced type of sentence. But I do not have that power."
The sole issue presented for determination in the brief of the defendant is her contention that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and that this court should exercise its power to mitigate its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Guerrero
...62 Ill.Dec. 882, 437 N.E.2d 409 (1982) (murder conviction reduced sua sponte to voluntary manslaughter); People v. Coleman , 78 Ill. App. 3d 989, 34 Ill.Dec. 510, 398 N.E.2d 185 (1979) (armed robbery conviction reduced sua sponte to robbery); People v. Clark , 70 Ill. App. 3d 698, 27 Ill.De......
-
People v. Hernandez
...power to reduce the degree of an appellant's offense should be exercised with caution and circumspection. (People v. Coleman (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 989, 34 Ill.Dec. 510, 398 N.E.2d 185.) Factors relevant to such a determination include whether an evidentiary weakness exists and whether the t......
-
People v. Bitner
...in a reply brief (e. g., People v. Slaughter (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 88, 39 Ill.Dec. 467, 404 N.E.2d 1058; People v. Coleman (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 989, 34 Ill.Dec. 510, 398 N.E.2d 185; People v. Taylor (1970), 123 Ill.App.2d 430, 258 N.E.2d 823), we believe a sense of fundamental fairness dic......
-
People v. Barlett
...there was insufficient evidence to establish that a weapon was, in fact, present at the occurrence (E. g., People v. Coleman (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 989, 34 Ill.Dec. 510, 398 N.E.2d 185; People v. Taylor (1972), 3 Ill.App.3d 313, 278 N.E.2d 469. Cf., People v. Plewka (1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 553......