{ "id": 1295580, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. PORTER, Defendant-Appellant; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. PORTER, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Porter", "decision_date": "1996-11-22", "docket_number": "Nos. 4\u201496\u20140359, 4\u201496\u20140430 cons.", "first_page": "50", "last_page": "54", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "285 Ill. App. 3d 50" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "402 N.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "817" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 639", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3225092 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/82/0639-01" ] }, { "cite": "558 N.E.2d 638", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 Ill. App. 3d 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2462689 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/200/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 N.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "716" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 2d 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5543502 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/116/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 N.E.2d 882", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "883" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5809665 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "659 N.E.2d 106", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108", "parenthetical": "second district" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 Ill. App. 3d 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 927700 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535", "parenthetical": "second district" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/276/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "663 N.E.2d 22", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24-25", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 Ill. App. 3d 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1156840 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501-02", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/278/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "667 N.E.2d 516", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 150161 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612-13", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/281/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "668 N.E.2d 51", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52-54", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 Ill. App. 3d 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 159560 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279-81", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/282/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "665 N.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303-04", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 Ill. App. 3d 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 75410 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "725-26", "parenthetical": "first district" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/279/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "1993 Ill. Laws 2604", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Ill. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "634 N.E.2d 717", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "719-20" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 780286 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/158/0386-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 581, "char_count": 9997, "ocr_confidence": 0.771, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0692346773791983e-07, "percentile": 0.5593727665203647 }, "sha256": "0f340ffb7fa3d68cab5b5ed45b0e8b06c7392cc2f7e01fa80a0c79baaf4bd7db", "simhash": "1:317e318d2f478d07", "word_count": 1685 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:27.033630+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. WILLIAM C. PORTER, Defendant-Appellant.\u2014THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. PORTER, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn these consolidated appeals, defendant William C. Porter seeks review of sentences imposed in Macon County case Nos. 92 \u2014 CF\u2014799 and 94 \u2014 CF\u2014704. In No. 92 \u2014 CF\u2014799, defendant pleaded guilty to attempt (burglary). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, pars. 8 \u2014 4(a), 19 \u2014 1(a). On November 11, 1993, he was sentenced to 18 months\u2019 probation. In July and August 1994, the State filed four petitions to revoke probation alleging (1) burglary and criminal damage to property (De Witt County case No. 94 \u2014 CF\u201476); (2) failure to pay restitution, public defender fees, and probation service fees in Macon County case No. 92 \u2014 CF\u2014799; (3) burglary (Macon County case No. 94 \u2014 CF\u2014589); and (4) the burglary which was charged in Macon County case No. 94 \u2014 CF\u2014704. On January 4, 1995, defendant pleaded guilty to the burglary alleged in No. 94 \u2014 CF\u2014704. In what was apparently a consolidated sentencing hearing in case Nos. 92 \u2014 CF\u2014799 and 94\u2014 CF \u2014 704, defendant was sentenced to concurrent periods of probation of two years, conditioned on 90 days in jail subject to work release and 12 months\u2019 intensive probation supervision (IPS).\nOn October 10, 1995, a petition to revoke IPS was filed charging defendant with reckless driving while his driver\u2019s license was suspended (Macon County case Nos. 95 \u2014 TR\u201417370, 95 \u2014 TR\u201417371) and resisting a peace officer. On January 8, 1996, four additional petitions to revoke probations were filed alleging (1) armed robbery, home invasion, aggravated battery to a senior citizen, armed violence, and residential burglary to Wayne and Mary Campbell; (2) two counts of robbery of Ellyn and Allan Carney; (3) robbery of Dorothy Borden; and (4) attempt (armed robbery) of Jean Crane.\nFollowing an evidentiary hearing in which evidence was presented on the petitions as to the traffic violations and resisting a peace officer, the petition as to the Campbells and the petitions as to Crane, the trial court found the allegations proved. Defendant\u2019s probations were revoked. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of five years in No. 92 \u2014 CF\u2014799 and seven years in No. 94 \u2014 CF\u2014704.\nThe only issues raised on appeal are whether (1) defendant\u2019s sentences are excessive and (2) he is entitled to 90 days\u2019 credit against his sentences for time previously served while on probation. The State responds that these issues are waived because defendant failed to file in the trial court a written post-sentencing motion challenging the correctness of the sentences. We decline to find waiver, but affirm the revocations of probations and sentences, while remanding for calculation of defendant\u2019s sentencing credit.\nThe first paragraph of section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) now states:\n\"(c) A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, within 30 days after the sentence is imposed. A defendant\u2019s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing shall be made by a written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence. However, the court may not increase a sentence once it is imposed.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) (West 1994).\nPrior to the inclusion of the emphasized language in the above quotation, the Supreme Court of Illinois interpreted the statute as being permissive and not mandatory. That is, a defendant was not required to file a written post-sentencing motion in order to preserve sentencing issues for review. People v. Lewis, 158 Ill. 2d 386, 390-91, 634 N.E.2d 717, 719-20 (1994). Since the amendment (Pub. Act 88 \u2014 311, \u00a7 15, eif. August 11, 1993 (1993 Ill. Laws 2604, 2615)), some courts have interpreted this paragraph. People v. Cook, 279 Ill. App. 3d 718, 725-26, 665 N.E.2d 299, 303-04 (1995) (first district); People v. Reed, 282 Ill. App. 3d 278, 279-81, 668 N.E.2d 51, 52-54 (1996) (first district); People v. O\u2019Neal, 281 Ill. App. 3d 602, 612-13, 667 N.E.2d 516, 523 (1996) (first district); People v. McCleary, 278 Ill. App. 3d 498, 501-02, 663 N.E.2d 22, 24-25 (1996) (first district); People v. Moncrief, 276 Ill. App. 3d 533, 535, 659 N.E.2d 106, 108 (1995) (second district). Mc-Cleary and Cook were both decided by the first district, first division.\nRecognizing that the legislature retained the word \"may\u201d in the first sentence of section 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c), we agree with the interpretation placed on it by Cook. The statute, even as amended, does not require a defendant to file a post-sentencing motion as a prerequisite to an appeal. It merely dictates the form it must take and when it must be filed if defendant chooses to file one. In addition, this interpretation avoids any possible challenge to the constitutionality of this section based on the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, \u00a7 1.\nThe first issue is whether the sentence was excessive. Defendant\u2019s entire argument is that his character and potential for rehabilitation are such that lesser sentences would be appropriate. Defendant, born July 16, 1975, points to a criminal history in the presentence investigation report (PSI) that includes a juvenile adjudication for burglary and criminal damage to property less than $300 (Macon County case No. 91 \u2014 J\u201462) and two speeding tickets as an adult (Macon County case No. 92 \u2014 TR\u20142152; Edgar County case No. 94\u2014 TR \u2014 595). He admits there is also a conviction for reckless driving and driving while his driver\u2019s license was suspended (Macon County case Nos. 95 \u2014 TR\u201417370, 95 \u2014 TR\u201417371). Defendant further points out that at the time of sentencing he was working as a construction laborer earning $11 per hour.\nIn the absence of an abuse of discretion, the sentences will not be altered on review. People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill. 2d 149, 153, 368 N.E.2d 882, 883 (1977). A sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be overturned unless it is greatly at variance with the purpose and spirit of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense. People v. Cabrera, 116 Ill. 2d 474, 493-94, 508 N.E.2d 708, 716 (1987). When sentencing a defendant after revocation of probation, the trial court may consider the defendant\u2019s conduct while on probation, and criminal offenses committed by defendant while on probation may be considered in aggravation. People v. Laws, 200 Ill. App. 3d 232, 237, 558 N.E.2d 638, 641 (1990).\nThe attempt (burglary) in case No. 92 \u2014 CF\u2014799 was a Class 3 felony (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, pars. 8 \u2014 4(c)(4), 19 \u2014 1(b)) for which a sentence of not less than two years and not more than five years was authorized (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20141(a)(6)). The burglary in case No. 94 \u2014 CF\u2014704 was a Class 2 felony (720 ILCS 5/19 \u2014 1(b) (West 1992)) for which a sentence of not less than three years nor more than seven years was authorized (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u2014 1(a)(5) (West 1992)). Since the offenses involved in this appeal did not arise from a single course of conduct, the trial court had the discretion to impose consecutive sentences if, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of defendant, it was of the opinion consecutive sentences were required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by defendant. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20144(b); 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(b) (West 1992). When separate victims are harmed by separate criminal acts directed at the victims separately, consecutive sentences are not prohibited by section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(a) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20144(a); 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(a) (West 1992)). People v. Schlemm, 82 Ill. App. 3d 639, 649, 402 N.E.2d 810, 817 (1980). Here, the trial court found the nature and circumstances of the original offenses and the history and character of the defendant necessitated consecutive sentences to protect the public from defendant\u2019s further criminal conduct.\nThe sentences were not excessive, and no abuse of sentencing discretion had been demonstrated. This determination is made on the basis of our review of the common law record, in particular the original and updated PSI, and the transcript of the probation revocation hearing, and a transcript of the sentencing hearing following revocation of probation (April 10, 1996), which was allowed to be filed as a supplement to the record on defendant\u2019s motion.\nThe final issue is whether defendant is entitled to 90 days\u2019 credit against his sentence for time previously served while on probation. The docket entry of April 10, 1996, indicates the trial court ruled that defendant was \"to be given credit for time served to be calculated.\u201d The sentencing order in both of these cases says the same thing. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court intended to give defendant credit for time served, but simply failed to calculate it. As a result, the judgment of the circuit court of Macon County is affirmed in all respects except as to the credit for time previously served, and to that extent, the sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Macon County to calculate the sentence credit to which defendant is entitled and to modify the sentencing orders in these cases accordingly.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded with directions.\nCOOK, P.J., and STEIGMANN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Jon C. Baxter, of Baxter & Massey, of Decatur, for appellant.", "Lawrence R. Fichter, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Kathy Shepard, 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. WILLIAM C. PORTER, Defendant-Appellant.\u2014THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. PORTER, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNos. 4\u201496\u20140359, 4\u201496\u20140430 cons.\nOpinion filed November 22, 1996.\nModified on denial of rehearing December 30, 1996.\nJon C. Baxter, of Baxter & Massey, of Decatur, for appellant.\nLawrence R. Fichter, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Kathy Shepard, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0050-01", "first_page_order": 70, "last_page_order": 74 }