People v. Henne
| Decision Date | 21 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--394,71--394 |
| Citation | 10 Ill.App.3d 179,293 N.E.2d 172 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie B. HENNE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Paul Bradley, Ill. Defender Project, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.
Wm. B. Petty, State's Atty., Carroll, James W. Jerz, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.
A jury found defendant, Willie B. Henne (and co-defendants Tracy Stewart, James DePaolo and John Weisz) guilty of burglary and theft. Henne was sentenced to serve from seven to twenty-one years in the penitentiary.
The facts in this case are set forth in People v. Stewart, Ill.App., 293 N.E.2d 169 (1973).
The defendant here raises three issues, two identical (including the wording of the brief) to those raised and decided in Stewart, supra. Answered fully in Stewart are defendant's arguments that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress and that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant's third issue is that his sentence was excessive and grossly disparate from that imposed upon co-defendant Stewart who, despite equal participation, received a one to four year sentence.
Upon sentencing Stewart, the trial judge rejected the State's recommendation of three to five years on the basis of the minimal amount of damage caused during the burglary and the small value of the tools stolen.
In sentencing Henne, the judge stated that he was not taking into consideration the additional crimes of escape and murder pending against defendant but was only considering 'all previous convictions, including juvenile proceedings.'
Reviewing the records of both Stewart and defendant, we find the gross disparity in sentencing was not justified. Henne, 23 years old, had, while a juvenile, committed some serious offenses such as arson, car theft, hit and run property damage and attempted escape from the Youth Authority. His last offense, however, was committed four years prior to the instant crime; since reaching maturity he has had no convictions. Stewart, 19 years old, had been convicted of two prior thefts, both occurring in the same year as the instant crime. Although the record indicates that defendant apparently escaped from the Sheriff's custody while awaiting sentencing, Stewart, who was on bond, did not appear for his hearing on aggravation and mitigation until a bench warrant had issued for his arrest.
Due to Henne's more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cooper
...... struck as he walked along Quarrier Street in Charleston's East End, being rolled over on the ground, and having his wallet removed by several people (at least two or three), who he could not identify. He needed stitches for his injuries, but has fully recovered. . On September 5, ...600, 417 A.2d 1210, 1216 (1980). . 7 People v. Walker, 44 Ill.App.3d 494, 3 Ill.Dec. 274, 358 N.E.2d 672 (1976); People v. Henne......
-
People v. Givens, s. 4-84-0371
...this argument is that the defendants who are similarly situated may not receive grossly disparate sentences. (People v. Henne (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 179, 293 N.E.2d 172.) Beard and Jerome maintain that they were less culpable than Carl and had previous records no worse than The restitution p......
-
People v. Kline
...... Defendant Garza, sentenced by a different judge, received a prison term of 15 to 25 years. . The appellate court cited a number of cases which hold "that defendants similarly situated may not receive grossly disparate sentences." (People v. Henne (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 179, 180, 293 N.E.2d 172.) It nevertheless indicated a willingness to affirm defendant's sentence on the basis of his criminal record. Specifically, at the time defendant was sentenced, he had been convicted of two murders and one attempted murder arising out of the same ......
-
People v. Hoffman
...... (People[25 Ill.App.3d 266] v. Dennis, 14 Ill.App.3d 493, 494, 302 N.E.2d 651.) And, as a principle of our criminal justice system, it is said that fundamental fairness and respect for our laws require that similarly situated defendants not receive grossly disparate sentences. (People v. Henne, 10 Ill.App.3d 179, 293 N.E.2d 172; People v. Haynes, 132 Ill.App.2d 130, 266 N.E.2d 172.) However, mere disparity between the sentences imposed on a defendant who stands trial and another who pleads guilty does not of itself require action by a reviewing court; it is the reason or the absence of ......