People v. Moore
| Decision Date | 04 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 70-46 |
| Citation | 272 N.E.2d 270,133 Ill.App.2d 827 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Morton Zwick, Executive Director, Illinois Defender Project, Chicago, Theodore A. Gottfried, District Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., St. Clair County, Belleville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant Willie Moore pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary in violation of Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Chap. 38, Sec. 19-1, in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. After denying his application for probation the court sentenced defendant to a term of three to ten years in the penitentiary. Defendant appeals contending that the sentence imposed was excessive.
The record discloses that the defendant is 23 years of age with a wife and three children and has an eighth grade education. He has no prior convictions. The burglary to which he pleaded guilty consisted of breaking into a market which had received fire damage the previous night and had been closed to the public. Neither he nor the co-defendant with whom he was indicted were armed and no merchandise was taken. The two men were found inside the store at approximately 1:30 in the morning and several boxes of merchandise were found stacked near the door. The indictment against the co-defendant was dismissed when he joined the army. The defendant had not maintained steady employment, but several job terminations were due to lack of transportation, union difficulties, or by the fact that the project on which he had been working was closed down. He lived at home with his family and had not mistreated his wife.
O. W. Goldenstein, who is employed at Southern Illinois University on the staff at the Center for the Study of Crime Correction and Delinquency and primarily trains probation officers in Illinois, testified on behalf of the defendant. He had known defendant since December of 1964 when he was pastor of the First United Lutheran Church in East St. Louis. He testified that during the time he has known defendant, defendant has exhibited positive leadership qualities in the community and has maintained an anti-violent attitude and that defendant has worked with him productively on several community projects and he believed that defendant would be a positive factor in the community if he were granted probation.
The chief adult probation officer prepared the probation report and testified at the hearing but he did not conduct the investigation. On the basis of information which he received, he concluded that defendant was not a fit subject for probation. There were references in his testimony and in the probation report to prior arrests, none of which resulted in convictions, as well as allegations that militant organizations operated in defendant's neighborhood and that defendant knew various persons who were deemed 'undesirable'. There was no showing as to the nature of his association with these organizations or persons or that he shared their philosophies.
Defendant has complained of the nature of most of the evidence introduced against him in the hearing. However, by requesting a hearing for probation, defendant has permitted the state to introduce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heirens v. Mizell
...of when rehabilitation could be presumed. The function of parole was to mediate between the two extremes. People v. Moore, 133 Ill.App.2d 827, 829, 272 N.E.2d 270, 271 (5th Dist.1971); People v. Lillie, 79 Ill.App.2d 174, 178, 223 N.E.2d 716, 718-719 (5th Welsh, 668 F.2d at 330. The two cas......
-
People v. Andreano
... ... 70, 359 N.E.2d 903; People v. Kelly, 36 Ill.App.3d 476, 344 N.E.2d 50), it is proper to consider such arrests and charges when a convicted defendant has made an application for probation (People v. Kelly; People v. Taylor, 13 Ill.App.3d 974, 301 N.E.2d 319; People v. Moore, 133 Ill.App.2d 827, 272 N.E.2d 270). Mere reference to a pending charge does not, of itself, show the judge's reliance thereon in imposing sentence (People v. Glover, 27 Ill.App.3d 827, 327 N.E.2d 310). The presumption is, moreover, that the trial court considered only proper factors in imposing ... ...
-
Welsh v. Mizell
...of when rehabilitation could be presumed. The function of parole was to mediate between the two extremes. People v. Moore, 133 Ill.App.2d 827, 829, 272 N.E.2d 270, 271 (5th Dist. 1971); People v. Lillie, 79 Ill.App.2d 174, 178, 223 N.E.2d 716, 718-719 (5th Dist. In 1972 the Illinois legisla......
-
People v. Jordan
...evidence supporting the petition. As to the propriety of a minimum sentence of five years, we consider our language in People v. Moore, Ill.App., 272 N.E.2d 270, 1971, Per Curiam, as being applicable to this case. There we 'This court has previously considered the purposes of the sentencing......