{
  "id": 5410031,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell Rudman et al., Defendants-Appellants; The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell Rudman, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rudman",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-08",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 12575-76 cons.",
  "first_page": "147",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 147"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 711",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1772134
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0711-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill.App.3d 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2868778
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/27/0680-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 2825,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1591005884899081
    },
    "sha256": "bdb6d41c0f31678ce96c417daa13cde732c7effa897baa4c2c208c0b8d3e3845",
    "simhash": "1:482a9dc9fb458dd4",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.902616+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. Mitchell Rudman et al., Defendants-Appellants.\u2014The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell Rudman, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 8, 1974, defendants-appellants entered pleas of guilty to the offense of failure to keep or falsifying records pursuant to section 14 of the Cigarette Tax Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 120, par. 453.14), a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of the hearing in aggravation and mitigation, the trial judge stated the sentence as follows: \u201cI do not believe that you are eligible for probation. * ' Mt will be this Court\u2019s sentence that both defendants be placed on either conditional probation or conditional discharge or probation, whatever for a period of 2 years with the condition also that they serve each on all counts that they pleaded guilty to, 4 months in prison at Vandalia State Farm; that they further pay the sum stipulated as the tax due * * * and in addition to that they pay a fine each of $500.00 plus costs of this suit.\u201d\nOn March 21, 1974, the trial judge entered a further judgment nunc pro tunc in relation to .the sentences, and on April 2, 1974, entered a further order in relation to the sentences. Both of these orders were entered after the notice of appeal was filed on March 13, 1974.\nSection 5 \u2014 6\u20143(d) of the Unified Code of Corections (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 6\u20143(d)), effective January 1, 1973, did not provide that the trial court could require a fixed period of imprisonment as a condition of probation. The 78th General Assembly amended this section to allow the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of up to 6 months in jail as a condition for probation. The argument here centers on the effective date of the amendment. In People v. Goetz, 27 Ill.App.3d 680, \u2014\u2014 N.E.2d-, we considered and determined the issue of the effective date of legislative enactments.\nBecause of the confused state of the record, and our inability to ascertain, from the vague language used, precisely what sentences the trial judge did impose, or intended to impose, we order the sentences vacated and the causes remanded to the circuit court for reimposition of sentences. The holding of the Supreme Court in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, should be borne in mind at the time of resentencing. In view of this disposition we decline to consider other errors asserted.\nSentences vacated and causes remanded for reimposition of sentences.\nTRAPP and GREEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert T. Lawley, of Springfield, for appellants.",
      "C. Joseph Cavanagh, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (Wayne Golomb, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell Rudman et al., Defendants-Appellants.\u2014The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell Rudman, Defendant-Appellant.\n(Nos. 12575-76 cons.;\nFourth District\nMay 8, 1975.\nRobert T. Lawley, of Springfield, for appellants.\nC. Joseph Cavanagh, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (Wayne Golomb, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0147-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 172
}