{ "id": 5216310, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN R. GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Graham", "decision_date": "1992-06-04", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201491\u20140841", "first_page": "733", "last_page": "737", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "229 Ill. App. 3d 733" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "579 N.E.2d 1154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1157" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5800933 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "268" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/219/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "579 N.E.2d 1152", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1154" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5798865 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/219/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 N.E.2d 1283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1284" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5448453 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/71/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 N.E.2d 220", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Ill. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5515941 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/97/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 N.E.2d 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3241492 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/69/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 N.E.2d 922", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "925" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2502712 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/29/0244-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 528, "char_count": 8491, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.357082078456081e-08, "percentile": 0.3364466422559771 }, "sha256": "a1702585b9826f22e85d315088f61224166c6b480e1cf6b86e53b1d45daf7a83", "simhash": "1:8106f11e8af4ccdd", "word_count": 1452 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:36.221708+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. JOHN R. GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, John Graham, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 95V2, pars. 11 \u2014 501(a)(1), (c).) The Champaign County circuit court sentenced him to 24 months\u2019 probation but, after defendant indicated he did not believe he could comply with the terms of probation, the court vacated the sentence of probation and sentenced him to 364 days\u2019 incarceration. The defendant appeals the imposition of the sentence of incarceration. We affirm.\nDefendant\u2019s presentence investigation report indicates he is 43 years old. He has been employed sporadically and previous employers have rated his job performance as fair or poor. They stated he was not dependable and was often absent due to his drinking problem. The report showed two DUI convictions, one in 1986 and one in 1990. An alcohol and drug evaluation report diagnosed defendant at level III, problematic use/dependence (high risk) (see 92 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a71001.410, at 6352 (1991)) and recommended outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse.\nAt the sentencing hearing in October 1991, defendant made a statement in which he argued incarceration was not in his best interest and instead sought probation. He described the evaluation process as aggravating and felt he had been mistreated during the evaluation. He believed the assessment of his alcohol use was inaccurate.\nThe court announced a sentence of 24 months\u2019 probation with the following conditions: report to the county court services department; pay court costs within a specified time; pay a probation fee of $10 per month; obtain 75 hours of outpatient alcohol and drug treatment, followed by a minimum of 22 hours of follow-up service at a licensed alcohol treatment agency; serve 180 days in jail; and attend three Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings each week while not incarcerated.\nThe court indicated the defendant would be released from incarceration on November 25, 1991, so he could begin to receive treatment. He was to report back to the court in January 1992 with proof of treatment and attendance at AA meetings and compliance with other terms of probation. If defendant met these conditions, the court stated he would not be sent back to jail, i.e., the remainder of the 180 days\u2019 incarceration could be remitted. The following colloquy then immediately occurred:\n\u201cTHE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, you\u2019ve taken away my means of even accomplishing the first part of it. I will lose not only my place of residence but my source of income and everything. I have no transportation. I\u2014\nTHE COURT: Are you telling me [that] you\u2019re not going to do these things, Mr. Graham?\nTHE DEFENDANT: You\u2019ve made it impossible for me to complete by putting me in jail.\nTHE COURT: Are you telling me you\u2019re not going to do these things, Mr. Graham?\nTHE DEFENDANT: I\u2019m telling you, your Honor, you have made\u2014\nTHE COURT: No, Mr. Graham. I haven\u2019t made anything impossible for you. You \u2014 this could be a felony matter where you could be going to the penitentiary. Sir, you have made this possible for yourself. What I am doing, sir, is giving you a break. If you aren\u2019t going to do it, if you\u2019re telling me you\u2019re not going to do it, you might as well tell me\u2014\nTHE DEFENDANT: Your Honor-\nTHE COURT: \u2014and save both of us time.\nTHE DEFENDANT: I can\u2019t say I can do something I don\u2019t think I can do.\nTHE COURT: Well, then fine. Show prior orders vacated. Defendant is sentenced to the Champaign County Correctional period [sic] for a period of 364 days with credit for 7 days\u2019 time served.\nMr. Graham, at this point, if you\u2019re not going to try, if you don\u2019t feel that there\u2019s any possibility, if you\u2019re telling me you\u2019re not going to do it, then I accept that, sir, and I will sentence you just to 364 days in jail. I will give you credit for the 7 days already served.\nI told you you had a choice. It would appear from your attitude from what you [have] told me about this matter that you are a person who will not be able to be trusted. If you are a person who will not do what they\u2019re supposed to day [sic] because you don\u2019t believe that you have the ability or means to do it, I can accept that, sir; and at this point I will do that for you and not give you the hassle of having to deal with me. So, you\u2019ll just go to jail for 364 days and be ordered to pay the costs in this matter.\u201d\nThe court later denied defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider the sentence. This appeal followed.\nThe first issue is whether the court had authority to impose the sentence of incarceration. Section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u2014 1(c)), states, in part: \u201c[T]he [trial] court may reduce [or modify] a sentence without motion, within 30 days after the sentence is imposed. However, the court may not increase a sentence once it is imposed.\u201d Subsection (c) of this section applies to misdemeanor as well as felony cases. People v. Cornett (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 244, 247, 329 N.E.2d 922, 925 (discussing section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(d) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20141(d)), predecessor to present section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c)).\nOn appeal, defendant argues the court improperly increased his sentence in violation of section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) of the Code. (People v. Stiger (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 188, 191, 387 N.E.2d 55, 57 (discussing section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(d) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20141(d)), predecessor to present section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c)).) According to the defendant, the court\u2019s oral pronouncement of the sentence was the judgment of the court and the later sentence of incarceration was barred because it constituted an increase in punishment. We disagree with the defendant\u2019s characterization of the proceedings.\n\u201c[I]n a criminal proceeding, the pronouncement of the sentence is the judicial act which comprises the judgment of the court. The entry of the sentencing order is a ministerial act and is merely evidence of the sentence.\u201d (People v. Williams (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 252, 310, 454 N.E.2d 220, 248; see also People v. Allen (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 378, 381, 375 N.E.2d 1283, 1284.) In this case the trial court clearly intended to honor the defendant\u2019s request and sentence him to probation. However, before the trial judge could conclude the sentencing hearing, the defendant interrupted and indicated he could not or would not comply with the terms of probation. Once the judge learned of defendant\u2019s recalcitrance, he immediately imposed the sentence of incarceration. We conclude the court had the authority to impose 364 days\u2019 incarceration because the sentencing hearing had not yet concluded, the defendant rejected the conditions of probation and thus rejected the sentence itself, and the court acted immediately.\nThe court\u2019s prompt action also conserved judicial resources. A trial judge need not enter judgment on a sentence of probation when the defendant has just informed the court he will not comply with the terms of probation. This would necessitate additional action by the court at a later date, probably in the form of a probation revocation hearing. \u201cScarce resources should not be wasted on uncooperative offenders who demonstrate no willingness to abide by the simplest of conditions.\u201d People v. Harlan (1991), 219 Ill. App. 3d 255, 258, 579 N.E.2d 1152, 1154; see also People v. Bell (1991), 219 Ill. App. 3d 264, 268, 579 N.E.2d 1154, 1157.\nWe must now determine whether the court abused its discretion in imposing this sentence. Defendant argues it is excessive. We disagree. The sentence did not exceed statutory limits. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20143(a)(1).) Given defendant\u2019s record of prior DUI convictions, his unwillingness to accept the diagnosis of the severity of his alcohol problem, and his unwillingness to comply with the terms of probation, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to 364 days\u2019 incarceration.\nThe judgment of the Champaign County circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCULLOUGH and LUND, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kristen H. Fischer, of Kristen H. Fischer Law Offices, of Urbana, for appellant.", "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Beth McCann, all 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. JOHN R. GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201491\u20140841\nOpinion filed June 4, 1992.\nKristen H. Fischer, of Kristen H. Fischer Law Offices, of Urbana, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Beth McCann, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0733-01", "first_page_order": 755, "last_page_order": 759 }