{
  "id": 2463401,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Moore, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1973-12-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 57205",
  "first_page": "1041",
  "last_page": "1042",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 Ill. App. 3d 1041"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "283 N.E.2d 738",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill.App.3d 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2527564
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/5/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.E.2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill.2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2844380
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/43/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.E.2d 225",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill.2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2853826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/41/0364-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2027,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.27879270835649e-07,
      "percentile": 0.616596759116072
    },
    "sha256": "39552c31d339ecead831af6353b1bac77a35e1180f738342555de5b2c20ffde7",
    "simhash": "1:da0efc01beb4efd5",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:38:17.475453+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. Arthur Moore, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a bench trial defendant was convicted of the charges of rape and robbery and thereafter before the same trial court pleaded guilty to a separate charge of robbery and a charge of jumping bail. Defendant was concurrently sentenced to a term of two to four years on the robberies, one to three years on the bail jumping charge, and five to fifteen years on the rape charge.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether the court erred in entering the foregoing sentences without a hearing in aggravation and mitigation. Defendant cites as authority Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, \u00a71 \u2014 7(G)- and related cases.\nThe disposition of this contention is controlled by People v. Nelson, 41 Ill.2d 364, 243 N.E.2d 225, wherein the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the burden is upon defendant to present matters in mitigation and failure to do so is a waiver. (See also People v. Fuca, 43 Ill.2d 182, 251 N.E.2d 239.) All decisional authority cited by defendant predate the foregoing two cases, with the exception of People v. Knighten, 5 Ill.App.3d 640, 283 N.E.2d 738, which was contrary without citation of authority.\nIn view of the foregoing, the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLEIGHTON and HAYES, JJ., concur.\nIt is observed that under the new \u201cUnified Code of Corrections\u201d effective January 1, 1973 at Chap. 38, \u00a7 1005 \u2014 i\u20141, Smith-Hurd Annotated Statutes, (1973) the Counsel Commentaries state: \"Former Illinois law provides for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation before sentencing, ch. 38 \u00a7 1 \u2014 7(G) (repealed.) Section 1005\u2014 4 \u2014 1 clears up any ambiguity in case law and makes this hearing mandatory whether requested by the defendant or not. ABA sentencing standards \u00a7 5.1.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Moore, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 57205;\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nDecember 4, 1973.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1041-01",
  "first_page_order": 1061,
  "last_page_order": 1062
}