{
  "id": 2502027,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laverta Tatum, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tatum",
  "decision_date": "1975-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 12572",
  "first_page": "251",
  "last_page": "252",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 251"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "280 N.E.2d 728",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill.App.3d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2916045
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "292-93"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/4/0291-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 3739,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.715,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0367213643348805e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7472715590754518
    },
    "sha256": "c4b3c591494bcb3056fb6f2363412e54598f66dd16181bcf9eabfd1e1f804015",
    "simhash": "1:e8691815d6250d26",
    "word_count": 616
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:57.823802+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. Laverta Tatum, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn June of 1973, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary. She was admitted to probation for a 2-year period. At the time, she was 17 years old, had previously been on probation for theft, and had two indictments for theft under $150 pending against her. Ry November of the same year, three separate probation violation reports had been filed against her, all involving accusations of theft or attempted theft.\nAfter the first report of probation violation, the tiial court held a hearing and took the matter under advisement. After the third such report, the court heard evidence on the second and third violations and terminated probation. At the hearing in aggravation and mitigation, the defense contended that defendant should be sentenced to the term the State\u2019s attorney had initially agreed to recommend. It was undisputed that the State had initially agreed to acquiesce in the granting of probation, or, if probation were denied, recommend a sentence of 1 to 10 years.\nInstead, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 3 to 10 years upon revocation of probation, stating:\n\u201cI was astounded that under these circumstances that she would have the criminal conduct as demonstrated in these violations * * * I again am sure that the problem here is gross and it\u2019s going to take a lot of something to get her straightened out.\u201d\nHie statutory range for burglary is 1 to 20 years, so that the lightest possible sentence is 1 to 3 years, and the greatest 6 years 8 months to 20 years. Hius, the sentence imposed here was within the statutory limits of the offense involved. The First District has said, in People v. Ford, 4 Ill.App.3d 291, 292-93, 280 N.E.2d 728, 730:\n\u201cSo far as the statute is concerned, the court, upon revocation of probation, may sentence defendant for a term not to exceed the statutory limits prescribed by law for the original offense. * * It is our belief * * * that a sentence higher than one which a court might originally have had in mind, may properly be imposed upon probation revocation, not to punish defendant for his subsequent acts, but to reflect the court\u2019s reassessment of the defendant\u2019s rehabilitation potential.\u201d\nThe Unified Code of Corrections itself requires the trial court, m imposing any sentence beyond the minimum, to take into consideration \u201cthe nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 1005\u20148\u20141(c) (3).) Surely, the \u201chistory and character of defendant\u201d up to the time of sentencing are relevant in the court\u2019s evaluation of the individual's potential for rehabilitation.\nThere is in fact no showing here that the trial judge ever intended to impose a sentence of 1 to 10 years, rather such sentence was to have been recommended. There is nothing in this record to suggest that the higher sentence actually imposed was in any way an enhanced sentence as punishment for the subsequent criminal conduct.\nThe defendant also urges that she was entitled to credit for time served on probation. The People concede to this point and we agree. The mittimus should be amended to reflect such credit. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for that limited purpose.\nJudgment affirmed; cause remanded for the issuance of an amended mittimus as herein specified.\nTRAPP, P. J., and GREEN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. McNichols and John L. Swartz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Basil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Jerry Finney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laverta Tatum, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12572;\nFourth District\nJune 19, 1975.\nJohn F. McNichols and John L. Swartz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nBasil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Jerry Finney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0251-01",
  "first_page_order": 275,
  "last_page_order": 276
}