Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Johnson

OPINION FILED OCTOBER 28, 1976.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

JOHN C. JOHNSON, JR. (IMPLEADED), DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Champaign County; the Hon. ROGER H. LITTLE, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE SIMKINS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of robbery and was placed on probation. Subsequently his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The sole question on appeal is whether defendant is entitled to credit for the time served on probation.

The issue on appeal arises because of the changes in sentencing law between the time the offense was committed and the time defendant was resentenced upon revocation of probation. For that reason, the crucial events are best viewed in chronological order.

December 15, 1972 - The alleged offense occurred.

December 20, 1972 - Defendant is indicted.

January 1, 1973 - The Unified Code of Corrections becomes effective. The new code contains mandatory parole terms and also mandatory credit for time served on probation.

February 26, 1973 - Defendant pleads guilty to robbery.

March 23, 1973 - A sentencing hearing was held. Defendant is given probation for three years.

July 1, 1974 - A change in the Code of Corrections becomes effective. Credit for time served on probation is no longer mandatory but discretionary with the trial court.

July 2, 1975 - Petition to revoke probation filed.

September 26, 1975 - Defendant found to have violated probation.

September 29, 1975 - Defendant receives a sentence of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years with credit for time served in the county jail (151 days).

At the original sentencing hearing in 1973 defendant was given the choice of being sentenced under the law in effect at the time of the offense or under the new Unified Code of Corrections. The only difference between the two pointed out on the record was the imposition of a mandatory 3-year parole term under the new Code. After consultation with counsel, defendant chose to be sentenced under the old law.

At the sentencing hearing in September 1975, the question arose as to whether defendant should be given credit for the time spent on probation. Both the defense and the State agreed that this decision was discretionary with the trial court. The trial court determined not to give credit but specifically stated that he was considering that time in determining the length of the sentence. The State recommended a sentence of 3 to 9 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.