{
  "id": 3583295,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT GROMM, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Gromm",
  "decision_date": "1987-12-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201487\u20140238",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "164 Ill. App. 3d 236"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "412 N.E.2d 541",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5476013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/82/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "492 N.E.2d 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. App. 3d 973",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3452408
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/142/0973-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 N.E.2d 927",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 3d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5581712
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/72/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 N.E.2d 811",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. App. 3d 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3034597
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/106/0072-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 5365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2753739118680978e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6157225768761035
    },
    "sha256": "a02f13cbd7f3eaa57c6961a6745342549e7857730ab52b51910543ae037da0dc",
    "simhash": "1:482e66b0f3d488f5",
    "word_count": 881
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:25.181183+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. ROBERT GROMM, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Robert Gromm, pleaded guilty to the offense of unlawful restraint. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 10 \u2014 3.) For a factual basis the State established that on September 15, 1986, the defendant grabbed his wife, threw her to the ground and hit her about the face and body, thereby restraining her freedom of movement. The State further established that as the wife attempted to leave in her automobile, the defendant fired six shots from his .44 , caliber revolver into the automobile. The shots did not hit the wife, but again restricted her freedom of movement. The court sentenced the defendant to 18 months\u2019 imprisonment. The defendant appeals. We affirm.\nOn appeal, the defendant\u2019s first issue is whether the sentencing court improperly considered his juvenile record. Relying on People v. Chumbley (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 72, 435 N.E.2d 811, the defendant claims that the court could not consider his juvenile record because he was never adjudicated a delinquent.\nWhen the Fourth District rendered its decision in Chumbley, section 2 \u2014 9(2) of the Juvenile Court Act (the Act) provided as follows:\n\u201c(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, whenever anyone who has been adjudicated to be a delinquent minor described in Section 2 \u2014 2 is convicted of a crime in any court, the court in which the conviction has been entered may, in passing upon an application for probation or in determining the sentence to be imposed, examine the records of disposition or evidence which were made in proceedings under this Act.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 702\u2014 9(2).)\nPursuant to section 2 \u2014 9(2) of the Act, the Chumbley court found that the sentencing court erred in considering the defendant\u2019s juvenile record where he had not been adjudicated a delinquent for his criminal actions, but had merely been placed on supervision.\nSubsequent to Chumbley, the legislature amended the Act. (Pub. Act 82 \u2014 973, eff. Sept. 8, 1982.) Pursuant to Public Act No. 82\u2014 973, the admissibility of juvenile records, formerly governed by section 2 \u2014 9, is now controlled in pertinent part by section 2 \u2014 10(l)(b), which provides as follows:\n\u201cSec. 2 \u2014 10. Admissibility of Evidence and Adjudications in Other Proceedings. (1) Evidence and adjudications in proceedings under this Act shall be admissible:\n* * *\n(b) in criminal proceedings when the court is to determine the amount of bail, fitness of the defendant or in sentencing under the Unified Code of Corrections ***.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 702-10(l)(b).)\nThe plain and ordinary meaning of the language of section 2\u2014 10(l)(b) clearly shows the legislature\u2019s intent to allow a court sentencing a defendant under the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1001 \u2014 1\u20141 et seq.), to consider any prior juvenile adjudication, not only a finding of delinquency.\nIn the case before us, the presentence investigation report revealed that as a juvenile, the defendant had been both placed on supervision for possession of cannabis and adjudicated a minor in need of supervision as the result of a battery charge. Under section 2 \u2014 10(l)(b) of the Act, the sentencing court did not err in considering the defendant\u2019s juvenile record.\nThe final issue is whether the trial court gave improper consideration to aggravating and mitigating factors in imposing sentence. The defendant first argues that the court erred in stating that the defendant was fortunate both that he did not receive a more serious charge for his instant conduct and that he received only a misdemeanor conviction for a prior offense. We have reviewed the judge\u2019s statements and find that he was merely reciting what had actually occurred, and was not engaging in speculation as to the defendant\u2019s guilt. See People v. Michels (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 182, 390 N.E.2d 927.\nThe defendant next argues both that the trial court improperly failed to find or even consider evidence in mitigation and that the court improperly considered in aggravation that his conduct threatened serious bodily harm. Mitigating evidence was presented to the court and there is no arguable indication, other than the sentence imposed, that the trial judge did not consider the evidence. Therefore, we presume that the court considered the evidence in mitigation. (People v. Abrego (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 973, 492 N.E.2d 636.) Further, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s considering that the defendant\u2019s conduct threatened serious bodily harm given that he fired six rounds from a .44 caliber gun into a car containing his wife.\nWe will not reverse a trial court\u2019s sentence absent an abuse of discretion. (People v. Cox (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 268, 412 N.E.2d 541.) Here, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence six months above the statutory minimum.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHEIPLE and SCOTT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Spencer Lee Daniels, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "Gary L. Peterlin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Ottawa (Martin P. Moltz, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT GROMM, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201487\u20140238\nOpinion filed December 30, 1987.\nSpencer Lee Daniels, of Peoria, for appellant.\nGary L. Peterlin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Ottawa (Martin P. Moltz, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 262
}