People v. McCrory
| Decision Date | 24 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 13683,13683 |
| Citation | 43 Ill.App.3d 892,357 N.E.2d 709 |
| Parties | , 2 Ill.Dec. 542 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry McCRORY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James Geis, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellant; Ira Moltz, Asst. State Appellate Defender, of counsel.
Basil G. Greanias, State's Atty., Macon County, Decatur, for appellee; Jerry G. Finney, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
Defendant Terry McCrory was indicted by the Macon County grand jury for the offenses of burglary and theft of property exceeding $150 in value. On June 3, 1975, pursuant to a plea negotiation, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of theft of property exceeding $150 in value. A presentence report was prepared and on June 19, 1975 defendant was placed on 2 years probation. On October 31, 1975 a report of violation of probation was filed alleging that defendant violated the conditions of his probation by committing the offense of reckless driving, driving without the permission of his probation officer, and being out after curfew. A hearing on the alleged violation of probation was held on December 11, 1975 and the judge found that defendant committed the acts alleged in the report. The judge terminated defendant's probation and sentenced him to 2 to 10 years in the penitentiary.
On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence should be vacated because the court did not order a presentence report prior to resentencing and defendant did not waive such a report. The Unified Code of Corrections requires that a presentence report be prepared and considered by the court before sentencing in all felony cases unless defendant waives such a report (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 1005--3--1). Although a presentence report was prepared before defendant was placed on probation, defendant argues that after probation revocation, a new report should have been prepared before the court imposed a different sentence. Defendant relies on People v. Comerford (1975), 35 Ill.App.3d 287, 341 N.E.2d 131, to support his position. In Comerford, defendant waived his right to a presentence investigation after his original conviction and was placed on probation. His probation was subsequently revoked and defendant was sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. On appeal, the court vacated that sentence because no presentence report had been prepared and the record did not show that defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coleman
...relatively current and if the defendant is given the opportunity to present any additional information. (People v. McCrory (1976), 43 Ill.App.3d 892, 2 Ill.Dec. 542, 357 N.E.2d 709; see People v. Curtis (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 34, 18 Ill.Dec. 359, 377 N.E.2d 844; compare People v. Demma (1980......
-
People v. Brady, 4-87-0855
...report of investigation is presented to and considered by the court." This section was considered in People v. McCrory (1976), 43 Ill.App.3d 892, 2 Ill.Dec. 542, 357 N.E.2d 709. In McCrory, as here, the defendant argued his sentence should be vacated because the trial court did not order a ......
-
People v. Torres
...the opportunity to update the report and provide further mitigating evidence through his own remarks (see People v. McCrary (1976), 43 Ill.App.3d 892, 2 Ill.Dec. 542, 357 N.E.2d 709), and did not allege any deficiencies or inaccuracies in the prior report (People v. Meeks (1980), 81 Ill.2d ......
-
People v. Curtis
...ch. 38, P 1005-3-1), the preparation and consideration of a presentence report was mandatory in felony cases. In People v. McCrory (1976), 43 Ill.App.3d 892, 357 N.E.2d 709, the court considered a case in which a presentence report had been prepared at the time of the original conviction an......