People v. Ford, 1-97-3914
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | COUSINS |
| Citation | 703 N.E.2d 436,234 Ill.Dec. 575,301 Ill.App.3d 56 |
| Parties | , 234 Ill.Dec. 575 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas FORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 1-97-3914,1-97-3914 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1998 |
Page 436
v.
Douglas FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
First District, Second Division.
Page 437
[234 Ill.Dec. 576] Rita A. Fry, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago (Elyse Krug Miller, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.
Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney of Cook County, Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Jon J. Walters, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Justice COUSINS delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a bench trial, the defendant, Douglas Ford, was found guilty of burglary and sentenced to 2 years' probation and 200 hours of community service. Defendant was 18 years old and had no criminal history and no gang involvement. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion. He specifies that the trial court's order directing him to complete 200 hours of community service as a condition of probation "was not 'reasonable' in light of the other statutory requirement which set a maximum of 120 hours of community service for offenders who are gang members and convicted of gang-related crimes."
The State contends that defendant waived this sentencing issue for review by failing to raise the issue in a post-sentencing motion. We agree. Moreover, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit.
Relative to waiver, section 5-8-1(c) of the Illinois Unified Code of Corrections provides that, "[a] defendant's challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of a sentencing hearing shall be made by written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence." 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 1996). This requirement that sentencing issues be raised in the trial court to preserve those issues for review is mandatory. People v. Reed, 177 Ill.2d 389, 392, 226 Ill.Dec. 801, 686 N.E.2d 584, 585 (1997).
However, even were this issue not waived, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant. A trial court's decision with respect to sentencing is entitled to great deference and weight since it is in a better position than a reviewing court to fashion an appropriate penalty. People v. Streit, 142 Ill.2d 13, 18-19, 153 Ill.Dec. 245, 566 N.E.2d 1351, 1353 (1991); People v. Pendleton, 279 Ill.App.3d 669, 678, 216 Ill.Dec. 290, 665 N.E.2d 350, 357 (1996).
Burglary is a Class 2 felony, for which a defendant may be sentenced to a range between three and seven years in prison. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 (West 1996). Further, a defendant may be placed on probation for as much as four years. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-2(b) (West 1996). Section 5-6-3 of the Unified Code of Corrections provides for conditions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jovan A. (In re Angeles), 1–10–3835.
...court's oral pronouncement to preserve an evidentiary issue, and no such authority appears to exist. See [6 N.E.3d 765]People v. Ford, 301 Ill.App.3d 56, 59, 234 Ill.Dec. 575, 703 N.E.2d 436 (1998) (reviewing courts need not address arguments that lack citation to relevant authority); see a......
-
People v. Wolst, 1-02-2878.
...authority for this proposition, the issue has been waived under Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)). People v. Ford, 301 Ill.App.3d 56, 59, 234 Ill.Dec. 575, 703 N.E.2d 436 In sum, there was evidence in the record to support both the trial judge's decision to allow for th......
-
People v. Jenkins, 1-01-0073.
...that Jenkins' failure to sign a waiver of rights form rendered his statement involuntary. This argument is thus waived. People v. Ford, 301 Ill.App.3d 56, 59, 234 Ill.Dec. 575, 703 N.E.2d 436 (1998); 155 Ill.2d R. Our supreme court has dictated that in order to determine whether Jenkins' in......
-
People v. Jovan A. (In re Jovan A.), 1-10-3835
...during a court's oral pronouncement to preserve an evidentiary issue, and no such authority appears to exist. See People v. Ford, 301 Ill. App. 3d 56, 59 (1998) (reviewing courts need not address arguments that lack citation to relevant authority); see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Ju......