{
  "id": 2707353,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman L. Brown, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1975-08-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-115",
  "first_page": "547",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 547"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.3d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2685208
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/14/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.3d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2681782
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/14/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2882811
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "424"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/33/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill.App.3d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5345064
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "886"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/20/0880-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill.App.3d 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2509760
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "47"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/17/0024-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ill.App.3d 1026",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2756933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/2/1026-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill.2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5391657
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/51/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill.App.3d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2470860
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/6/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill.2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5395691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/52/0107-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 371,
    "char_count": 5629,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1621459367730513e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5843018260910192
    },
    "sha256": "5f458bc2c205bde18fbea79da4ae4c8c74d5dc637f72e81bf048a54f341f0e07",
    "simhash": "1:b12f0538ae44c57c",
    "word_count": 953
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:56.206419+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. Herman L. Brown, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIXON\ndelivered the opinion of the cotut:\nDefendant, Herman L. Brown, was indicted by the Kane County Grand Jury on counts of aggravated kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery. He was found guilty as to all three offenses at a jury trial. He was sentenced to three consecutive terms of 7 to 15 years in prison. On appeal defendant contends that it was improper to convict him for both aggravated kidnapping and rape, that it was improper to impose consecutive sentences for each of the three offenses, that the aggregate minimum term of his consecutive sentences is greater than allowed by the Unified Code of Corrections and that the sentences given were excessive.\nOn January 6, 1973, at about 2 aun., complainant was accosted by a man with a knife who said, \u201cI\u2019m going to fuck you, bitch,\u201d who then forced her into a car, kicking her legs and hitting her in the face. Once in the car he continued to hit her in the face, 12 to 15 times. He ordered her to stay down in the back seat, got into the front seat and drove away, holding a butcher knife over the back of the seat. The man drove for less than half an hour, then stopped the car, got into the back seat and raped the complainant. Then the man returned to the front seat and went through her purse and took some money. He then let the complainant go. She walked to her apartment and telephoned the police. In court, the complainant identified defendant. She had earlier described him to the police.\nDefendant was properly convicted of both aggravated kidnapping and rape. People v. Canale, 52 Ill.2d 107; People v. Pardue, 6 Ill.App.3d 430. See also People v. Moore, 51 Ill.2d 79.\nRegarding the argument as to improper imposition of consecutive sentences, section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections states in relevant part:\n\u201cThe court shall not impose consecutive sentences for offenses which were committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20144(a).\nClearly there was a \u201csubstantial change in the nature of the criminal objective\u201d here regarding the armed robbery. Defendant had completed the rape and then went through tire victim\u2019s purse and took some money. The criminal objective changed from raping the victim to robbing her. See People v. Walker, 2 Ill.App.3d 1026.\nHowever, consecutive sentences were not possible for the rape and aggravated kidnapping convictions. The kidnapping here was done in order to effectuate the rape. The criminal objective was to rape the victim, so there was no change in the nature of the criminal objective. Section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections only allows consecutive sentences where one is convicted of two or more offenses which were not a part of the same course of conduct and where there was a change in the nature of the criminal objective. See People v. Mackins, 17 Ill.App.3d 24, 47; 1973 U.Ill.L.F. 423.\nThus, there must be concurrent sentences for the aggravated kidnapping and rape convictions herein, and a consecutive sentence on the armed robbery conviction.\nHowever, the minimum term of the sentences must be reduced. At the time of sentencing in the instant case, the applicable statute was as follows:\n\u201cThe aggregate minimum period of consecutive sentences shall not exceed twice the lowest minimum term authorized under Section 5 \u2014 8\u20141 for the most serious felony involved.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1973 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20144( c).)\nUnder section 5 \u2014 8\u20141 the minimum term for the most serious felony, rape, is 4 years. Thus, the maximum aggregate minimum of the consecutive sentences may not be more than 8 years. We therefore reduce the sentences to concurrent terms of 4 to 15 years each for aggravated kidnapping and rape, and a consecutive term of 4 to 15 years for armed robbery. See People v. Scott, 20 Ill.App.3d 880, 886.\nThe trial judge by statute is vested with discretion in setting the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment and in sentencing consecutively. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 1005 \u2014 8\u20141,1005\u20148\u20144(b).) While an appellate court may reduce a sentence given by the trial court (Iff. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 615(b) (4)),\n6 \u00b0 such authority should be applied with considerable caution and circumspection, for. the trial judge ordinarily' has a superior opportunity in the course of the trial and the hearing in aggravation and mitigation to make a sound determination concerning the punishment to be imposed than do the appellate tribunals.\u201d People v. Taylor, 33 Ill.2d 417, 424.\nGiven the severe beating defendant gave the victim in the instant case, the fact that he used a butcher knife to compel the victim to submit, and prior convictions for aggravated assault and battery, we cannot say that the sentences given (as modified by this decision) were excessive. The record does not warrant any further reduction. See People v. Malcom, 14 Ill.App.3d 378; People v. Morgan, 14 Ill.App.3d 232.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the sentences are modified as expressed above. In \"all other respects, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kane County is affirmed.\nJudgments affirmed as modified.\nRECHENMACHER, P. J., and T. MORAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIXON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defenders Office of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Gerry L. Dondanville, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva (Clarence Wittenstrom, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman L. Brown, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-115;\nSecond District (2nd Division)\nAugust 25, 1975.\nRalph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defenders Office of Elgin, for appellant.\nGerry L. Dondanville, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva (Clarence Wittenstrom, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0547-01",
  "first_page_order": 571,
  "last_page_order": 574
}