{
  "id": 2717419,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD AHMANN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ahmann",
  "decision_date": "1976-04-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-304",
  "first_page": "473",
  "last_page": "475",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 473"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 3d 1020",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5346247
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1023-24"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/13/1020-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3642,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.89,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08376569444782302
    },
    "sha256": "098b37585c647a571f2b66bb776d6446da1e551e69346e48b7ac77636eb509f3",
    "simhash": "1:0028184ff3fff9e7",
    "word_count": 594
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:56.744968+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. RICHARD AHMANN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to a two-count indictment for burglary and theft, respectively, defendant was sentenced on April 18, 1974, to five years\u2019 probation with the first two years to be served on a work-release program to be served and administered in Lake County where defendant had a job and was also engaged in a work-release program while on probation. Paragraph 6 of the order of probation in the case at bar, in providing for defendant to serve the first two years in jail through the work-release program added the following: \u201cThe defendant shall appear in Court on April 18, 1975, at 1:30 PM, for a review of his performance at which time the work-release period may be reduced to one (1) year.\u201d\nOn July 11, 1974, a petition to revoke defendant\u2019s probation was filed alleging that defendant\u2019s Lake County probation was revoked on June 25, 1974, \u201cdue to a violation of the defendant\u2019s Work-Release program in Waukegan, Illinois. That said defendant was sentenced \u00b0 \u00b0 0 in Lake County Court\u201d specifying the sentence imposed, and that \u201cdefendant is in violation of Rule No. 1 of his Orders of Probation.\u201d\nAt the evidentiary hearing on July 19, the only evidence presented of any violation were these statements by defense counsel:\n\u201cJudge, on behalf of the defendant, I have had an opportunity to review the contents of the petition with him, and specifically, Paragraph 2, which deals with a recitation of violation.\n# # #\nFor the purpose of the record, Judge, Mr. Robinson [defendant\u2019s alias] would admit those allegations contained in that petition, that he has in fact violated his probation.\u201d\nProbation was revoked and defendant was sentenced to not less than 18 months, nor more than 54 months, to be served concurrently with the sentence from Lake County.\nOn appeal to this court defendant contends that the petition to revoke was insufficient because it was susceptible to two possible interpretations which we do not find it necessary to set forth. The petition clearly recites that his probation in Lake County was revoked because he violated his work-release program in Waukegan. Defendant\u2019s probation in Du Page County was conditioned (as permitted by section 5 \u2014 6\u20143 of the Unified Code of Corrections) upon his serving the first two years of probation on a work-release program to be supervised by the Lake County Probation Department. It is apparent from the statements of defendant\u2019s counsel that both defendant and his counsel were aware that the reference to Rule No. 1 of the order of probation was intended, in the context of the petition, to refer to rule or paragraph 6 of that order. Defendant\u2019s counsel admitted in defendant\u2019s presence that defendant had violated that condition of his probation. The trial court\u2019s termination of defendant\u2019s probation was well within the the trial court\u2019s discretion under these circumstances. Absent a showing of any abuse of such discretion, we must affirm the order of the trial court. See People v. Johnson, 13 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 1023-24.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nT. J. MORAN, P. J., and DIXON, J., concur.\nIll. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005-6-3.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner and Joshua Sachs, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "John J. Bowman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton (Malcolm F. Smith, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD AHMANN, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District (2nd Division)\nNo. 74-304\nOpinion filed April 19, 1976.\nRalph Ruebner and Joshua Sachs, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nJohn J. Bowman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton (Malcolm F. Smith, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0473-01",
  "first_page_order": 501,
  "last_page_order": 503
}