{
  "id": 5495888,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES CALVERT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Calvert",
  "decision_date": "1981-09-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 17046",
  "first_page": "510",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 3d 510"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "421 N.E.2d 905",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5470158
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/85/0188-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 4761,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9129898169426458e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7319592763902452
    },
    "sha256": "4737395c688549c81590186a8b2584ae80ae6e0f3f7c5b944ad5e4ec2f86092a",
    "simhash": "1:c262dcaa78beecf4",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:06.230892+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. CHARLES CALVERT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn February 3, 1981, defendant, Charles Calvert, was convicted of the offense of criminal damage to property having a value in excess of $150, following a jury trial in the circuit court of Sangamon County. Thereafter defendant was sentenced to 2 years\u2019 probation conditioned upon his: (1) payment of restitution in the sum of $524.25 plus court costs; (2) spending 90 days in jail; (3) having no contact with the owner of the property which defendant damaged; and (4) cooperating in a counseling program.\nThe sole issue on appeal concerns whether the trial court could properly consider, in sentencing defendant, a finding of guilt on an earlier charge where defendant was given a disposition of supervision and successfully completed the supervision.\nDefendant was charged with damaging four automobile tires belonging to Marilyn Korach. Korach\u2019s two daughters testified that on August 5, 1980, they heard a hissing sound and saw defendant slitting the tires of Korach\u2019s automobile. Korach and her daughters testified to threats made by defendant earlier that day.\nAt the sentencing hearing, the trial court questioned defendant about a 1978 charge of battery on which defendant was found guilty following a jury trial. Defendant had then been placed on court supervision on March 16, 1979. The instant presentence report indicated that supervision was terminated on April 25, 1980, with no conviction resulting. The presentence report also indicated that defendant had three prior convictions for aggravated assault, theft, and disorderly conduct. The trial judge stated that he would not consider any charges not resulting in conviction. However, in sentencing defendant the judge stated, \u201cBut he does have one, two, three, four convictions of various things prior to this.\u201d As defendant contends, this statement shows that the trial judge did consider the battery charge for which defendant was given the disposition of supervision.\nSection 5 \u2014 6\u20143.1(f) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 6\u20143.1(f)) states,\n\u201cDischarge and dismissal upon a successful conclusion of a disposition of supervision shall be deemed without adjudication of guilt and shall not be termed a conviction for purposes of disqualification or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime. Two years after the discharge and dismissal under this Section a person may have his record of arrest expunged as may be provided by law. However, any defendant placed on supervision before January 1, 1980, may move for expungement of his arrest record, as provided by law, at any time after discharge and dismissal under this Section.\u201d\nIn People v. Wunnenberg (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 188, 421 N.E.2d 905, the supreme court construed a Federal statute which provided for the setting aside of a conviction where a court, in its discretion, unconditionally discharged a youth offender from probation prior to the expiration of the maximum period of probation fixed by the court. In that case a defendant\u2019s prior conviction, which had been set aside under the statute, was considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The supreme court held that the set-aside conviction under the statute should not have subsequent repercussions, either of a criminal or noncriminal nature, and should not have been considered in sentencing defendant.\nThe Federal statute states that the conviction is set aside when the court unconditionally discharges a youth offender. The Illinois statute states that the completion of a disposition of supervision shall be deemed without adjudication of guilt. We consider the language of the two statutes to have the same meaning. Therefore the effect of the Illinois statute is the same as that of the Federal statute.\nBecause of the direct analogy between the two statutes, we conclude that the trial judge should not have given consideration to defendant\u2019s 1978 battery charge which resulted in the disposition of supervision. However, defendant had three prior convictions, and obviously, whatever consideration was given to the battery charge was of a cumulative nature. We conclude that the consideration of the battery charge was harmless error.\nAccordingly, the sentence of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMILLS and WEBBER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Karen Munoz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "J. William Roberts, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES CALVERT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 17046\nOpinion filed September 16,1981.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Karen Munoz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJ. William Roberts, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0510-01",
  "first_page_order": 532,
  "last_page_order": 534
}