{
  "id": 5434886,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE LEE PATTON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Patton",
  "decision_date": "1983-01-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 82-449",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 Ill. App. 3d 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3085,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31449555553238817
    },
    "sha256": "36c0ed1547becf3548ac3ae6467b413474ac287bc95d766b6bc3da74b9e31439",
    "simhash": "1:c1e23ef6629986e8",
    "word_count": 520
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:23:40.944956+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. WILLIE LEE PATTON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nThis is a case of statutory interpretation.\nThe defendant, Willie Lee Patton, entered an automobile that did not belong to him for the purpose of stealing it. He was intercepted by a policeman during the attempted car theft and was arrested. He had a screwdriver on his person. The hood of the car was open. The steering column had been damaged. A search of Willie\u2019s Cadillac parked nearby disclosed six more screwdrivers, automotive lug nut keys, channel lock pliers, and a punch.\nWillie was found guilty of the offense of possession of burglary tools, section 19 \u2014 2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 2). The statute in question provides that a person commits the offense of possession of burglary tools when he possesses any instrument suitable for use in breaking into a motor vehicle with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.\nThe State is required to prove (1) that the tools were adapted for breaking and entering; (2) that defendant possessed them with knowledge of their character; (3) that he intended to use them for breaking and entering; and (4) that he possessed the requisite intent to commit therein a felony or theft. That is all.\nDefendant asks that we reverse his conviction for possession of burglary tools because of his contention that the statute contemplates a theft of something from within the car but not the car itself. That is to say, if defendant had intended to steal a package from the car seat, he would be guilty. But if he intended merely to steal the entire car, he would not be guilty.\nOn first impression, this argument seems silly. Upon further consideration, this initial impression is confirmed.\nIn the case at hand, it is undisputed that the defendant entered the motor vehicle without authority and with the intent to steal it. He possessed the requisite tools. His argument turns on the interpretation of the phrase, \u201cto commit therein a felony or theft.\u201d \u201cTherein,\u201d he maintains, means taking something from the vehicle but not the vehicle itself. This assertion will not stand analysis. The car theft would have been complete at the time he started the engine and drove it off. Unless he had some plan to drive the car by remote control from a point removed from the interior of the car, it would have to be concluded that the act of theft was to be committed within the vehicle: \u201ctherein\u201d as the statute reads.\nWe believe it is clear that the conduct of the defendant falls within the proscription of the possession of burglary tools statute.\nAccordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nALLOY and SCOTT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli and Peter A. Carusona, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Edward F. Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, 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. WILLIE LEE PATTON, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 82-449\nOpinion filed January 13, 1983.\nRobert Agostinelli and Peter A. Carusona, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nEdward F. Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 23,
  "last_page_order": 25
}