§ 8.14 Sentencing
Library | Illinois DUI and Traffic-Related Decisions (2016 Ed.) |
§ 8.14 Sentencing
§ 8.14-1 Improper Sentence
People v. Visor, 313 Ill. App. 3d 567, 730 N.E.2d 574, 246 Ill. Dec. 549 (2d Dist. 2000). After a jury trial in which defendant was convicted of reckless homicide involving four victims, the trial judge ordered defendant to pay $27,870.98 in restitution for the medical and burial expenses. This amount was to be paid in a lump sum within two years of his release from prison. Defendant claimed the trial court erred in ordering the restitution without properly considering defendant's ability to pay the restitution.
The appellate court agreed and reversed the order and remanded the matter for a hearing to determine defendant's ability to pay. The trial court originally entered the order for restitution without knowing the amount of the costs. Since the trial judge did not know the costs, it was evident the judge did not consider his ability to pay. Additionally, the trial judge erred when it ordered the restitution nunc pro tunc since at the original hearing, no evidence established the amount of the costs.
People v. Horton, 314 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 733 N.E.2d 701, 248 Ill. Dec. 26 (3d Dist. 2000). Following a stipulated bench trial defendant was convicted of four counts of reckless homicide and sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 years imprisonment. Counts I and II alleged reckless homicide on the basis of traffic violations while under the influence of alcohol or cannabis. Counts III and IV alleged reckless homicide on the basis of traffic violations without reference to alcohol or cannabis. The trial judge sentenced defendant to seven years on Counts I and III to run concurrent and five years on Counts II and IV to run concurrent, however the five years were to run consecutively to the seven year sentences on Counts I and III.
The appellate court vacated the convictions and sentences imposed under Counts III and IV on the basis of one-act-crime principles. The court affirmed defendant's convictions under Counts I and II but modified the order to have the sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively.
People v. Pomykala, 326 Ill. App. 3d 390, 759 N.E.2d 916, 259 Ill. Dec. 855 (3d Dist. 2001). Following a conviction for reckless homicide, defendant received a sentence of 14 years IDOC. The trial judge ordered that 50% of defendant's prison wages be withheld to pay for court costs. The appellate court held the order was void pursuant to People v. Dispensa, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1155 (2001).
People v. Patrick, 406 Ill. App. 3d 548, 956 N.E.2d 443, 353 Ill. Dec. 581 (2d Dist. 2010). Defendant was convicted of reckless homicide and four counts of failing to report an accident involving injury or death. The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison for failing to report an accident involving death, and five years for each of the three counts of failing to report an accident involving injury, which were to be served concurrently. The trial court also sentenced defendant to nine years imprisonment for the reckless homicide conviction, to be served consecutively, and ordered that defendant was to serve 85% of the reckless homicide sentence.
Defendant moved to reduce his sentences on June 10, 2008. On June 24, 2008, defendant filed a pro se motion for appointment of new counsel and a motion for a new trial. The trial court found defendant's pro se motions untimely and later denied defendant's motion to reduce his sentences.
Defendant appealed on five separate grounds, alleging: 1) the State failed to prove all elements of Section 11-401(b) of the Vehicle Code, 2) convicting him of four counts of failing to report an accident involving injury or death violated the one-act, one-crime rule, 3) the trial court lacked the statutory authorization to order him to serve 85% of his sentence, 4) the trial court did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 431(b), and 5) the trial court improperly failed to consider his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in his two pro se motions.
Counts I through IV charged defendant with failing to report the accident within one-half hour of the accident, pursuant...
To continue reading
Request your trial