{
  "id": 5499713,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARTHA BIEDERMAN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Biederman",
  "decision_date": "1981-09-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 80-615",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 3d 558"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 3d 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3123849
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/94/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 3d 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3196842
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "662"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/85/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 3d 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3122900
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/94/0086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2960666
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/34/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 3d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3395997
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/53/0335-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3626,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.919,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1710047186657738e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5863668113469164
    },
    "sha256": "b38e18683a15c647dfc38b5644a651b04dc1d6b8a8245cb3f593ac7dbd497689",
    "simhash": "1:504296b25276792d",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "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. MARTHA BIEDERMAN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE UNVERZAGT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant was found guilty by a Winnebago County jury of aggravated battery and mob action on May 9, 1980. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, pars. 12 \u2014 4(b) and 25 \u2014 1(a)(1).) The charges resulted from defendant\u2019s participation in a counterdemonstration against a Nazi rally held in Sinnissippi Park in Rockford, Illinois, on September 15, 1979, during which a police officer was injured. Defendant\u2019s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied. The court sentenced the defendant to a 12-month period of conditional discharge on July 11,1980, for the aggravated battery offense. Defendant now appeals, raising six issues, one of which concerns' the mob action offense. Although the State did not raise the issue, we determine the appeal must be dismissed without consideration of the merits of these issues for lack of a final, app'ealable order.\nBefore the merits of an appeal are addressed, the appellate court first has the duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction. (People v. Williams (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 335.) Appellate courts, subject to statutory exceptions, are without jurisdiction to. review judgments, orders, or decrees which are not final. (People v. Culhane (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 158.) In a criminal case, a final judgment is that which terminates the litigation on its merits and usually that consists of a judgment of guilt and the imposition of a sentence. In re A.M. (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 86.\nThe conditional discharge order in the instant cause specifically recited: \u201cThe matter of restitution is reserved for a period of 30 days for further order of this court.\u201d This order was entered on July 11,1980, thus reserving jurisdiction in the court until August 10, 1980. Defendant\u2019s notice of appeal, however, was filed on August 5, 1980, at which time appellate court jurisdiction attached instanter and the trial court was concomitantly deprived of jurisdiction. (People v. Baker (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 661, 662.) Consequently, no final appealable order was ever entered. Although our research has not disclosed a case in which these precise circumstances have occurred before, we believe the effect of the premature filing of the defendant\u2019s notice of appeal was to suspend the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction and that the trial court has time remaining out of the original 30-day period it had reserved to itself to consider whether or not to order restitution pursuant to section 5 \u2014 6\u20143(b)(9). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 6\u20143(b)(9).\nWe note defendant failed to include an appendix to her brief, and failed to supply either a verbatim transcript of the post-trial/sentencing proceedings, a bystander\u2019s report, or an agreed statement of facts. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 612.) Also, we are unable to determine from the record whether a judgment was ever entered by the court on the verdict of guilty of mob action. Clearly no sentence order appears of record for that offense; thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider any issue relating to that charge either. People v. Cook (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 73.\nAccordingly, this appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and VAN DEUSEN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE UNVERZAGT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Beu, of Rockford, for appellant.",
      "Daniel Doyle, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Phyllis J. Perko and Paula R. Johnson, both 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. MARTHA BIEDERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 80-615\nOpinion filed September 25,1981.\nWilliam R. Beu, of Rockford, for appellant.\nDaniel Doyle, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Phyllis J. Perko and Paula R. Johnson, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 580,
  "last_page_order": 582
}