People v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 28 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 13674,13674 |
| Citation | 1 Ill.Dec. 855,356 N.E.2d 1137,43 Ill.App.3d 94 |
| Parties | , 1 Ill.Dec. 855 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas B. DUNN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Stephan A. Elman, Peoria, for defendant-appellant.
Richard W. Leiken, State's Atty., Woodford County, Eureka, for plaintiff-appellee; G. Michael Prall, Principal Atty., Ill. State's Attys. Assn., Statewide Appellate Assistance Service, Springfield, Marc D. Towler, Staff Atty., of counsel.
On November 3, 1975, defendant, Douglas B. Dunn, was issued a traffic citation and complaint alleging that he had committed the offense of failure to signal when required in violation of section 11--804(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--804(b)). Defendant subsequently entered a plea of not guilty to this charge and requested to be tried by the court.
A bench trial followed on December 17, 1975. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found the defendant guilty of the offense charged. The court then proceeded to impose a sentence of 2 years' probation. Conditions attached to this probation by the court included a provision that the defendant serve 3 days in the county jail and a provision that defendant 'keep a personal appearance (including hair length and clothes) approved by the Probation Officer.'
After imposing the above sentence, the trial court then ordered defendant to get a short haircut and return to the court before noon on that same day. Defendant complied and the trial judge reduced the condition of 3 days in jail to 1 day. A mittimus was issued, but was stayed by the trial judge pending appeal. This court later granted defendant's motion to stay that portion of the probation order requiring defendant to keep a personal appearance approved by the probation officer and requiring him to have a short haircut.
On appeal defendant asserts that he was denied the right to be represented by counsel at trial and at the sentencing hearing. He also raises a number of issues concerning his sentence.
The People have confessed error as to defendant's contention that he was denied the right to be represented by counsel at trial. We agree. (See, Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530.) The record in this case shows that defendant was not represented by counsel. Also, the record does not show that defendant was advised of his right to counsel, or that he knowingly and understandingly waived such right. Therefore, defendant's conviction for the offense of failure to signal when required must be reversed.
Defendant further argues that the cause should not be remanded to the trial court. We do not agree. Where an accused has been denied a constitutional right, the proper remedy is to grant him a new trial. (People v. Nelson (1960), 18 Ill.2d 313, 164 N.E.2d 16; People v. Morrissey (1972), 52 Ill.2d 418, 288 N.E.2d 397.) Consequently, this case will be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Finally, defendant has raised questions concerning the sentence imposed by the trial court. More particularly, he asserts that the trial judge improperly ordered him to get his hair cut, and imposed as a condition of probation the requirement that he maintain the length of his hair, and his appearance, in a manner approved by his probation officer. Because this question is likely to reoccur, we will consider it.
Section 5--6--3 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 1005--6--3) provides the conditions which may be imposed when a sentence of probation is ordered. Without setting forth this entire section, suffice it to say that none of the conditions include the regulation of the length of the person's hair or his personal appearance. While the section does appear to provide for conditions other than those specifically listed (See, section 5--6--3(b)), there must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jawan S.
...condition. See 705 ILCS 405/5–715(2)(s–5) (West 2016). These concerns are not relevant here.¶ 22 In People v. Dunn , 43 Ill. App. 3d 94, 95, 1 Ill.Dec. 855, 356 N.E.2d 1137 (1976), the trial court sentenced the defendant to two years of probation for the traffic offense of failure to signal......
-
M.P., In Interest of
...(People v. Stocke, 212 Ill.App.3d 547, 554, 156 Ill.Dec. 605, 571 N.E.2d 192 (1991)). Defendant relies on People v. Dunn, 43 Ill.App.3d 94, 1 Ill.Dec. 855, 356 N.E.2d 1137 (1976), in support of his argument that (1) there is no authority in the Act which allows for tattoo removal as a condi......
-
People ex rel. Harrod v. Illinois Courts Commission, 49118
...been interpreted by an appellate court and which was, at the time, the subject of a pending appeal. See People v. Dunn (1976), 43 Ill.App.3d 94, 356 N.E.2d 1137, 1 Ill.Dec. 855, a case involving one of the petitioner's haircut The Board, on the other hand, argued that the Commission had jur......
-
People v. Renner
...the defendant's booking picture together with an apology for driving under the influence of alcohol); People v. Dunn, 43 Ill.App.3d 94, 1 Ill.Dec. 855, 356 N.E.2d 1137 (1976) (the appellate court held that the circuit court acted improperly in imposing, as a condition of probation, the requ......