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.

08/29/97 PEOPLE STATE ILLINOIS v. KIM D. KIMBRELL

August 29, 1997

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KIM D. KIMBRELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from Circuit Court of Adams County. No. 95CF414. Honorable David L. Slocum, Judge Presiding.

Honorable Robert J. Steigmann, P.j., Honorable James A. Knecht, J. - Concur, Honorable Frederick S. Green, J. - Concur. Presiding Justice Steigmann delivered the opinion of the court.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steigmann

PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:

In May 1996, a jury convicted defendant, Kim Kimbrell, of one count of theft of property over $300 (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4)(A) (West Supp. 1995)). In June 1996, the trial court sentenced her to 30 months' probation, subject to various conditions, including that she not have any contact with Chris Johnson, the person who allegedly provided her with the stolen property (and who is the father of her son). Defendant appeals, arguing only that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the "no contact" probation condition. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

We review the trial evidence only to the extent necessary to put defendant's argument in context. Michelle Crawford testified that she lived with Johnson in the downstairs apartment at 1625 Ohio in Quincy, Illinois, while defendant and her 13-year-old son lived in the upstairs apartment. In September 1995, two homes near Quincy were burglarized and jewelry and other items (including a grandfather clock) were stolen. On September 15, 1995, Johnson gave Randy Wert "some money *** and some methamphetamine" for the stolen jewelry. Crawford stated that Johnson "had [defendant] take the jewelry," who then put it in a plastic baggie inside her purse and took it from the downstairs apartment. Crawford also testified that Nick Salyer, who burglarized the homes with Wert, brought stolen items (including the grandfather clock) to 1625 Ohio. Based on information provided by Crawford, police officers executed a search warrant at 1625 Ohio and found the stolen jewelry in the upstairs apartment inside defendant's purse.

Defendant testified that she found the jewelry in the upstairs apartment (inside the grandfather clock). She took the jewelry because she wanted to "trade" it for items she believed Salyer hadpreviously stolen from her. Defendant also stated that Salyer often brought property to 1625 Ohio.

At the June 1996 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 30 months' probation subject to various conditions (including the "no contact" provision at issue here) and stated, in relevant part, the following:

"As far as you knowing what went on out there at 1625 Ohio, you certainly I think had every knowledge. *** And, essentially, you're raising your son in a den of thieves and a place where cannabis and controlled substances are trafficked. *** That's the point I can't grasp why anybody would put their son in that kind of situation. When the boy gets about 20 years old and is doing drugs and out of hand, if he is, then you have nobody to blame because he knows what he sees around him."

The presentence report prepared by the probation department indicated that (in addition to stolen property) police found cannabis and a large sum of money at 1625 Ohio during their execution of the search warrant.

II. THE "NO CONTACT" PROBATION CONDITION

Defendant argues that the "no contact" probation condition constituted an abuse of discretion because it was unreasonable and constitutionally overbroad. We disagree.

Section 5-6-3(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) enumerates 16 permitted probation conditions which the trial court may impose "in addition to other reasonable conditions relating to the nature of the offense or the rehabilitation of the defendant as determined for each defendant in the proper discretion of the court." 730 ILCS 5/5-6-3(b) (West Supp. 1995). In particular, section 5-6-3(b)(15) of the Code provides that the trial court may require that the defendant

"refrain from having any contact, directly or indirectly, with certain specified persons or particular types of persons, including but not limited to members of street gangs and drug users or dealers." ...


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.