{
  "id": 3497702,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLIVER BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brooks",
  "decision_date": "1986-03-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 85\u20140567",
  "first_page": "889",
  "last_page": "891",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 889"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "374 N.E.2d 194",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5448796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/71/0166-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "458 N.E.2d 565",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 Ill. App. 3d 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3594045
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "548"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/120/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 U.S. 277",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6194264
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/463/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "483 N.E.2d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3130415
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "195"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/108/0182-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3511,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09805127634854387
    },
    "sha256": "b1389ba23085b48c9d175bacb9a25d43e52c085d1ad7ce3323b739c4af7aecc5",
    "simhash": "1:bf2f9ebc0ccca6d9",
    "word_count": 549
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:34.513048+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. OLIVER BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BUCKLEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial, defendant, Oliver Brooks, was convicted of residential burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 3) and sentenced to the mandatory minimum prison term of four years. He contends on appeal that the sentencing scheme for residential burglary violates the limitation of penalties provision of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 11) and the United States constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const., amends. VIII and XIV) because the mandatory minimum sentence of four years is disproportionate to both the offense and the offender. Defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.\nDefendant was convicted of burglarizing a south side Chicago residence on September 11, 1984, and received the mandatory minimum sentence of four years\u2019 imprisonment. His first contention on appeal is that the sentencing scheme for residential burglary violates the limitation of penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. This argument was recently considered and rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Bales (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 182, 483 N.E.2d 517, which upheld the constitutionality of the sentencing scheme in question.\nAlthough the Bales decision did not specifically address the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, we believe that defendant\u2019s argument in this regard must also fail. In order to violate the eighth amendment, a sentence must be significantly disproportionate to the crime. (Solem v. Helm (1983), 463 U.S. 277, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637, 103 S. Ct. 3001.) This court, in People v. Gomez (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 545, 548, 458 N.E.2d 565, responded to the defendant\u2019s eighth amendment challenge by stating that:\n\u201c[W]e would not conclude that [a] mandatory minimum [sentence] of four years for the offense of residential burglary is either cruel, degrading or wholly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. *** [T]he potential for serious damage, both physical and psychological, is present whenever someone unlawfully enters the residence of another. Illinois has taken a firm position in favor of the sanctity of the home against intrusion, and the basis of that position is well founded.\u201d\nWhile we agree that a comparison of the Illinois sentencing scheme with those adopted in other States is relevant to a constitutional analysis, we conclude that, in light of the gravity of the offense, the Illinois legislature was acting well within its authority in determining the penalty for residential burglary. See People v. Bales (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 182, 195, 483 N.E.2d 517.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nPursuant to People v. Nicholls (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 166, 374 N.E.2d 194, we grant the State\u2019s request that defendant be assessed $50 as costs for the State\u2019s defending this appeal, and incorporate it as part of our judgment.\nJudgment affirmed.\nO\u2019CONNOR and QUINLAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BUCKLEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Adam Kara, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Joan S. Cherry, Paula M. Carstensen, and Jeffrey S. Ryan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLIVER BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 85\u20140567\nOpinion filed March 10, 1986.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Adam Kara, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Joan S. Cherry, Paula M. Carstensen, and Jeffrey S. Ryan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0889-01",
  "first_page_order": 911,
  "last_page_order": 913
}