{
  "id": 2798502,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Davis, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1975-09-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 61028",
  "first_page": "760",
  "last_page": "762",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 760"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "329 N.E.2d 390",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill.App.3d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5408797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/28/0777-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.E.2d 423",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill.App.3d 1031",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2781963
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/26/1031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.E.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.E.2d 703",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill.App.3d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2913718
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/4/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.E.2d 644",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill.2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2924244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/53/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N.E.2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill.App.2d 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2598250
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/57/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5264623
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/43/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.E.2d 240",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill.App.2d 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2536837
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/96/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.E.2d 933",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 Ill. 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2577583
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/367/0504-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 5330,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.711,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3022358842768954e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6224407291699245
    },
    "sha256": "0d8d9c92d73dd6126b60babbb199d4dc53022b9e2024db845cd556de4c969325",
    "simhash": "1:2d406481edf888e0",
    "word_count": 886
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:14:58.460223+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. Willie Davis, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DOWNING\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nWillie Davis, defendant, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County revoking his probation.\nOn July 30, 1973 defendant was cenvicted upon his plea of guilty to an information charging him with the crime of theft. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1(a)(1)). He was placed on probation for a period of four years.\nOn December 10, 1973, a rule to show cause why defendant\u2019s probation should not be revoked was filed. The rule alleged that on September 26, 1973, defendant had been arrested on the charge of attempt theft. On September 27, 1973, defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of 30 days in the House of Correction.\nOn December 27, 1973, a hearing was held on the rule to show cause why defendant\u2019s probation should not be revoked. At that time the assistant State\u2019s attorney informed the trial judge that on July 30, 1973, the defendant was placed on probation; that on September 27, 1973, the defendant appeared before the same trial judge, who had placed him on probation, and was convicted of criminal trespass to a motor vehicle; and that defendant at that time was sentenced to a term of 30 days in the House of Correction. The assistant State\u2019s attorney produced a copy of the court records of the proceedings of September 27, 1973. The trial judge examined the records and acknowledged that they were signed by him. Over defense Counsel\u2019s objections, the trial judge took judicial notice of defendant\u2019s conviction on September 27, 1973. At the conclusion of the hearing, defendant\u2019s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of 1 to 4 years.\nDefendant\u2019s only contention on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in revoking his probation where the State failed to produce any competent evidence of a probation violation. The State argues that the trial judge properly took judicial notice of defendant\u2019s conviction of September 27, 1973. The rule is well established that while courts should take judicial notice of their records in a pending case, they cannot do so with respect to records of other proceedings even where the facts are within the personal knowledge of the court. People v. McKinlay, 367 Ill. 504, 11 N.E.2d 933; In re Estate of Fornof, 96 Ill.App.2d 260, 238 N.E.2d 240; Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill. 155; Palmer v. Mitchell, 57 Ill.App.2d 160, 206 N.E.2d 776.\nThe State now argues that an exception to this general rule was created by the supreme court in Walsh v. Union Oil Co., 53 Ill.2d 295, 291 N.E.2d 644. There, plaintiff filed suit alleging ownership of certain oil, gas and mineral interests which had been leased to the defendant by plaintiff\u2019s predecessors in title. During the pendency of the appeal, the deed under which plaintiff claimed title was held to be void by the circuit court of Wayne County. The decision by the circuit court of Wayne County holding that the deed to plaintiff was void would have the effect of totally obviating the issues on appeal. The supreme court held that it would take judicial notice of proceedings in the circuit court of Wayne County since that cause had substantially the same parties and was totally determinative of the pending case.\nWe believe that the State seeks to over-extend the doctrine announced by the supreme court in Walsh. There, the court held that a court of review may properly take judicial notice of proceedings in one cause where the parties are substantially the same and where that cause is totally determinative of the case on review.\nIn the case at bar, the trial court sought to take judicial notice of defendant\u2019s subsequent conviction after being placed on probation. That subsequent conviction, while entitled to great weight at a probation revocation hearing, is not totally determinative of those proceedings. (See People v. Ward, 4 Ill.App.3d 631, 281 N.E.2d 703; People v. Mosley, 2 IIl.App.3d 375, 276 N.E.2d 455.) Accordingly, we conclude the doctrine announced by the supreme court in Walsh was not applicable to the case at bar, and the trial judge could not properly take judicial notice of the defendant\u2019s subsequent conviction even though that conviction was within the court\u2019s personal knowledge.\nOn the basis of the record before us, we find that the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation. The State should have introduced a certified copy of the judgment under which defendant was convicted. (People v. Hook, 26 Ill.App.3d 1031, 325 N.E.2d 423.) Accordingly, the revocation of probation order and sentence imposed thereafter are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the view expressed in this opinion. People v. Lewis, 28 Ill.App.3d 777, 329 N.E.2d 390.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSTAMOS and LEIGHTON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DOWNING"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul Bradley and Brenda E. Richey, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon and John T. Theis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Davis, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 61028;\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nSeptember 30, 1975.\nPaul Bradley and Brenda E. Richey, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon and John T. Theis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0760-01",
  "first_page_order": 786,
  "last_page_order": 788
}