{
  "id": 2491519,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LESTER LE BLANC, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Le Blanc",
  "decision_date": "1976-08-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-308",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 3d 287"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "347 N.E.2d 67",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 918",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2715373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/37/0918-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N.E.2d 773",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. 2d 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2823645
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/29/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N.E.2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "742"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2597183
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "191"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/57/0190-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4471,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.889,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43688145525086597
    },
    "sha256": "178a53252b399fdd19b93329008eb5f71fe9c0e1d8ea574eec7d2faa66d91539",
    "simhash": "1:0a2004b2d7aaa19b",
    "word_count": 743
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:47:10.337116+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LESTER LE BLANC, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State appeals from an order dismissing a criminal information which charged defendant Lester Le Blanc with theft. The issue before us involves the chronology of defendant\u2019s appearances before the Circuit Court of Will County. In February, 1974, defendant, then 16 years of age, appeared in a juvenile proceeding and was found in need of supervision and placed under court supervision for a term of one year with the cause being continued to March 13, 1975.\nOn July 5, 1974, a criminal complaint was filed charging Lester Le Blanc, then 17 years of age, with the offense of burglary of the housetrailer of Glen Bell, in which several weapons were taken. On July 18,1974, this charge was reduced to a misdemeanor theft by filing a criminal information.\nOn January 27,1975, the juvenile probation officer assigned to Lester Le Blanc prepared an order of restitution, and the juvenile court ordered defendant to make restitution in the amount of $127.30 to Glen Bell which covered the items taken on or about June 30,1974, the offense charged on July 5, 1974.\nOn June 4, 1975, a hearing was held on the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the pending criminal information of the theft of Glen Bell\u2019s property. The motion sought dismissal upon the basis of double jeopardy. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court dismissed the pending charge.\nAlthough the State now claims the court vacated the order of restitution in the juvenile proceedings on June 23,1975, only the State\u2019s statement of facts, and not the court record, supports such a claim.\nThe inadequacy of the record provided by the State in this case makes it almost impossible to consider the merits of the State\u2019s position. We have before us only what is known as a common law record. Here, the State seeks review of an order dismissing an information. The record filed by the State, however, contains neither a report of proceedings nor a substitute provided by Supreme Court Rule 323(c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 323(c)). It is contended by the State that the order of the trial court, dismissing the theft charge upon the basis of double jeopardy, erroneously found that a juvenile prosecution against the defendant involved the same factual allegations as in the criminal case. The order of the trial court dismissing the charge recites that the court \u201cfinds that in the juvenile proceedings restitution was ordered on the same matters in this cause * * * Motion allowed.\u201d\nIn People v. Zimmerman (1st Dist. 1965), 57 Ill. App. 2d 190, 191, 206 N.E.2d 741, 742, the court said:\n\u201cThis court cannot assume that the trial court relied entirely on the grounds set forth in writing in defendant\u2019s motion, included in this record. There may have been other grounds to support the order on which this appeal is based. The \u2018question before a reviewing court is the correctness of the result reached by the trial court, and not the correctness of the reasoning upon which the result was reached.\u2019 [Citation.] Where the record on appeal is incomplete, the reviewing court wifi indulge every reasonable presumption favorable to the judgment, order or ruling appealed from. It will presume \u2018that the court ruled or acted correctly \u00b0 \u00b0 \u00b0. Any doubt arising from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against appellant.\u2019 \u201d\nSee also People v. York, 29 Ill. 2d 68, 193 N.E.2d 773; People v. Profit, 37 Ill. App. 3d 918, 347 N.E.2d 67.\nThe State contends that jeopardy occurs only at the adjudication stage of a juvenile proceeding. We agree, but the record in this case is so incomplete we cannot assume that the juvenile court acted without an adjudication in ordering restitution. The absence of a suitable record precludes review of this issue, as we engage every reasonable presumption favorable to the judgment below, and since the record before us does not indicate what was done in the juvenile hearing, the action of the trial court in its dismissal of the charges must be and the same is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nALLOY, P. J., and BARRY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin Rudman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Alan Bruggeman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Robert Agostinelli and Mary Robinson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LESTER LE BLANC, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 75-308\nOpinion filed August 31, 1976.\nMartin Rudman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Alan Bruggeman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.\nRobert Agostinelli and Mary Robinson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 315,
  "last_page_order": 317
}