Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit, Rock Island County, Illinois. Circuit No. 11-CF-785. The Honorable Michael F. Meersman, Judge, presiding.
In defendant's appeal from his sentence of two years' probation following his conviction for intimidation by threatening not to respond to certain 911 calls during his employment as a sergeant for a police department, the appellate court rejected defendant's contention tat the condition of his probation that he become current on child support was unauthorized, since section 5-6-3(b)(6) of the Unified Code of Corrections specifically provides that the trial court has the discretion to require defendant to support his dependents as a condition of probation, and in view of the specific enumeration of that condition, there is no requirement of a finding that the condition be reasonably related to the underlying offense.
Rikin Shah (argued), of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin, for appellant.
John L. McGehee, State's Attorney, of Rock Island (Dawn Duffy (argued), of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Wright specially concurred, with opinion.
[¶1] The defendant, Raymond E. Goossens, appeals from his conviction for intimidation, challenging the condition of his probation order that he become current on child support. We affirm.
[¶3] The defendant, Raymond E. Goossens, was convicted of intimidation (720 ILCS 5/12-6(a)(6) (West 2010)) after he, as a sergeant of the Cordova police department, threatened to not respond to 911 calls from the Cordova Dragway while two former police officers worked there. The defendant was sentenced to a term of two years' probation. The order of probation contained 21 conditions, one of which was that the defendant become current on his child support. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to include the child support condition in the probation order and asking this court to vacate that condition.
[¶5] The defendant argues that the child support condition was unauthorized because it made the probation an indeterminate term, thereby in violation of the maximum 30-month term authorized by section 5-4.5-40(d) of the Unified Code of Corrections (the Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40(d) (West 2010)). The defendant also argues that the condition was not authorized under section 5-6-3 of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5-6-3 (West 2010)) because child support payments did not reasonably relate to the offense of intimidation. The State argues that the trial court had specific statutory authority to impose the child support condition. Whether or not the ...