{
  "id": 5439862,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEE HENRY CARTER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1983-01-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-82-0412",
  "first_page": "994",
  "last_page": "996",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 994"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 4435,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.408767690195799e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2763676569560619
    },
    "sha256": "76a768c75da0e9bf756db00f4e7530f06056f4ce45f47052fcf2b1cd85e653df",
    "simhash": "1:f93a1dbce0af908d",
    "word_count": 771
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.990742+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. LEE HENRY CARTER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE TRAPP\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals the revocation of his probation. He was originally placed on probation on August 25, 1981, for the offense of aggravated battery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 12\u20144) on the condition, inter alia, that he not violate any criminal statute of this jurisdiction. The petition alleged defendant committed the offense of unlawful use of weapons. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 24\u20141(a)(4), (10).) The court found that violations of these sections had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant was sentenced to 29 months\u2019 imprisonment with credit for time on probation or in jail. Notice of appeal was filed the same day.\nSection 24 \u2014 1(a)(4), (10) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 24\u20141(a)(4), (10)) provides that it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun \u201cexcept when on his own land or in his own abode or fixed place of business.\u201d\nDefendant was observed by two police officers as one of three black males standing on a sidewalk and parkway to the north of 505 North Fifth Street in Champaign, Illinois. The testimony of Officer Harris, who first observed defendant, included:\n\u201cQ Where exactly were they?\nA Slightly north of the 505 address. This would have been adjacent to what should have been 507 North Fifth.\nQ Okay. Where were they when you saw them?\nA Standing on the sidewalk.\nQ What \u2014 did you see any of them \u2014 any of the three men leave the group and go somewhere?\u201d\nHe continued:\n\u201cHe [defendant] left the two men he was talking to and he proceeded southwest over to a large tree. When he arrived at the tree he knelt down and removed an item from his waistband and placed down by the tree. After that, he began walking to the house that would have been number 507.\u201d\nOfficer Colclasure corroborated this except to testify defendant walked back to the 505 address. Colclasure recovered a handgun lying on the ground beneath the tree. No other objects were lying in the immediate vicinity of the gun, and the other two men \u201cwere still in the yard\u201d and did not approach the tree. There is no issue of the identification of the defendant.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the petition to revoke for the reason that there had been no testimony that defendant was not on his own land, at his place of abode or of business, when he was first observed on the sidewalk. He argued to the trial court that the sidewalk might have been a, private one to a house. The record does suggest that defendant might have resided at 505 North Fifth Street, Champaign. There are no other issues on appeal.\nThe trial court denied the motion to dismiss under the standard of the preponderance of the evidence finding that:\n\u201cIt is probably more true than not true that he was on the land of the city and not his abode or his fixed place of business or his own land.\u201d\nSection 11 \u2014 80\u201413 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 24, par. 11\u201480\u201413) provides:\n\u201cThe corporate authorities of each municipality may regulate the use of sidewalks, the construction, repair, and use of openings in the sidewalks, and all vaults and structures thereon and thereunder, including telephone booths, and may require the owner or occupant of any premises to keep the sidewalks abutting the premises free from snow and other obstructions.\u201d\nThe preponderance of evidence is that defendant was observed on the sidewalk paralleling the street. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant may have had a place of abode at 505 North Fifth Street, Champaign, we nevertheless conclude that the sidewalk, which under the cited provision of the Illinois Municipal Code is subject to the regulation use by the municipality, does not come within the language \u201cexcept when on his own land or in his own abode or fixed place of business\u201d as an exception to the violations charged.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGREEN and MILLS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE TRAPP"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Lawrence Bapst, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Robert J. Biderman and James K. Horstman, 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. LEE HENRY CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201482\u20140412\nOpinion filed January 18, 1983.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Lawrence Bapst, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Robert J. Biderman and James K. Horstman, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0994-01",
  "first_page_order": 1016,
  "last_page_order": 1018
}