{
  "id": 2906731,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Allen, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Allen",
  "decision_date": "1971-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 53987",
  "first_page": "332",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "131 Ill. App. 2d 332"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill.App. 2d 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1593001,
        1592955
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/111/0068-02",
        "/ill-app-2d/111/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2882811
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/33/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.2d 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2769106
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/14/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill.2d 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2885099
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/33/0439-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 2947,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08559668922782757
    },
    "sha256": "bcedddb5ecf9525c569272aba86eeae74956cfb961eb4521052c74c2a59d1e35",
    "simhash": "1:a8a35f35921cbf49",
    "word_count": 489
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:16.150777+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Allen, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals from a sentence of five to nine years after the revocation of probation. The sole contention on appeal is that the sentence is excessive.\nThe defendant was originally indicted for the offense of \u201ctheft from person\u201d in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1. After a bench trial defendant was found guilty. The court admitted defendant to probation for a period of five years on the condition that he serve the first year in the House of Correction.\nOn May 25, 1968, the defendant was observed by two police officers in the act of grabbing a purse from a lady. The victim fell to the ground and was cut on a piece of glass in the ensuing struggle. Defendant was apprehended by the police officers. Defendant was indicted and on October 10, 1968, he was tried and convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to serve five to nine years.\nOn January 10, 1969, a hearing was held to determine if defendant\u2019s probation should be revoked. On the basis of defendant\u2019s conviction for attempted robbery his probation was terminated.\nIn mitigation defendant\u2019s counsel asked only that the sentence to be imposed should run concurrently with the sentence for attempted robbery. The court sentenced defendant to a term of five to nine years with said sentence to run concurrently with his sentence for attempted robbery.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court, in People v. Miller, 33 Ill.2d 439, 444, set forth the test for determining whether a sentence is excessive:\n\u201cWhere it is contended that the sentence imposed in a particular case is excessive, though within the limits prescribed by the legislature, we will not disturb the sentence unless it clearly appears that file penalty constitutes a substantial departure from the fundamental law and its spirit and purpose, or that it is not proportioned to the nature of the offense.\u201d People v. Smith, 14 Ill.2d 95.\nSee also People v. Taylor, 33 Ill.2d 417, and People v. Davis, 111 Ill.App. 2d 68.\nIn the instant case the violation of probation involved the commission of a crime in which violence occurred. Further, the sentence imposed was within the limits prescribed by the statute.\nWe find no reason to reduce the sentence.\nJudgment affirmed.\nENGLISH and LEIGHTON, JJ., concur.\nIll. Rev. Stat, 1963, ch. 38, \u00a7 16 \u2014 1:\nPenalty\nA person convicted of theft of property from the person or exceeding $150 in value shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary from one to 10 years.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (John E. Hughes, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Allen, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 53987;\nFirst District\nJanuary 8, 1971.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (John E. Hughes, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0332-01",
  "first_page_order": 352,
  "last_page_order": 353
}