{
  "id": 2691763,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL E. CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Chaney",
  "decision_date": "1989-09-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-88-0759",
  "first_page": "334",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 3d 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "488 N.E.2d 620",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3530918
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/140/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "461 N.E.2d 634",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 Ill. App. 3d 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3522919
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/122/0733-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 2759,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.4007022237607e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5159414699467034
    },
    "sha256": "e9654e066de0481eef2574a7293baa232e73f35104cfbc64e09a6d9dfc96246c",
    "simhash": "1:1c3a167656d0ace5",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:06.130198+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. MICHAEL E. CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WOMBACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Michael E. Chaney, pled guilty to one count of unlawful delivery of more than 30 but less than 500 grams of a substance containing cannabis (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 56\u00bd, par. 705(d)). The trial court sentenced him to a term of five years in prison, ordered him to pay a mandatory fine plus court costs, and ordered him to pay $225 in restitution. The defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the court denied. He now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $225 in restitution.\nThe State agrees with the defendant\u2019s position. The only fact relevant to the issue is that the $225 restitution figure was the amount the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Illinois State Police paid the defendant for the cannabis its agent purchased from him.\nSection 5 \u2014 5\u20146 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 5\u20146) provides that the trial court may in certain instances order a convicted defendant to pay restitution to his victim in an amount not to exceed the actual out-of-pocket expenses or loss to the victim proximately caused by the defendant\u2019s conduct. However, where public money is expended in pursuit of solving crimes, the expenditure is part of the investigatory agency\u2019s normal operating costs and the agency is not considered a \u201cvictim\u201d for purposes of restitution. (People v. Evans (1984), 122 Ill. App. 3d 733, 461 N.E.2d 634.) A trial court\u2019s improper restitution order is void and may be attacked at any time. People v. Winchell (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 244, 488 N.E.2d 620.\nWe agree with the defendant and the State that the instant restitution award to the department was improper, because an investigatory agency is not a victim for purposes of restitution. Further, as noted in Winchell, the defendant is not barred from attacking the order on appeal, despite his failure to object to it in the trial court. Accordingly, we vacate the $225 restitution order and affirm the remainder of the defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Whiteside County insofar as it orders the defendant to pay $225 in restitution is vacated; the remainder of the circuit court\u2019s judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed in part and vacated in part.\nHEIPLE and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WOMBACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mark D. Fisher, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Gary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (Walter P. Hehner, 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. MICHAEL E. CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 88\u20140759\nOpinion filed September 5, 1989.\nMark D. Fisher, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nGary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (Walter P. Hehner, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0334-01",
  "first_page_order": 356,
  "last_page_order": 358
}