{ "id": 2640790, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE BECK, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Beck", "decision_date": "1976-10-06", "docket_number": "No. 62541", "first_page": "923", "last_page": "924", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 923" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "142 N.E. 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 Ill. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5107634 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/310/0558-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 299, "char_count": 4037, "ocr_confidence": 0.882, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2727415312674747e-07, "percentile": 0.6151605749987741 }, "sha256": "9a7387eb3beb40700b4b2a95be82ecadfa6f06b1355e6b3298a9d9447a66e782", "simhash": "1:33302ce4e3f8ac34", "word_count": 666 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:19.600233+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 BECK, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division. Willie Beck (hereinafter called \u201cdefendant\u201d) was indicted for the offense of robbery. Defendant waived trial by jury, was tried and convicted of the offense of theft from the person, and was sentenced to a term of not less than one nor more than four years in custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections.\nThe sole issue presented for review is whether an indictment which charges robbery is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense of theft from the person, where the indictment does not specifically allege intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use and benefit of the property.\nThe defendant was indicted on October 7, 1974, for the offense of robbery. Indictment No. 74-5533 specifies on August 22, 1974, the defendant committed the offense of robbery, in that he, by threatening the imminent use of force, took $20 from the person of Cathy M. Jordan, in violation of Chapter 38, Section 18 \u2014 1 of the Illinois Revised Statutes.\nAt the defendant\u2019s bench trial, Mrs. Cathy Jordan testified for the People that at approximately 11:30 p.m. on August 22, 1974, while working in a C.T.A. ticket booth at 87th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway, the defendant approached her and said, \u201cGive me your money. You won\u2019t get hurt.\u201d The defendant did not make any threatening gestures, but she considered it a threat when the defendant said, \u201c \u00b0 \u00b0 \u00b0 You won\u2019t get hurt.\u201d Mrs. Jordan never saw a weapon in the possession of the defendant, but did see a bulge under his shirt. She gave the defendant about $20, and watched him run away.\nThe defendant testified in his own behalf. On the evening of August 22, 1974, after having consumed one-half pint of vodka and one pint of whiskey, the defendant took a train to the 87th Street stop. He approached Mrs. Jordan and said only, \u201cGive me the money.\u201d He possessed no weapon, and made no threatening gestures. After the incident, the defendant ran and was later arrested.\nAt the close of all the evidence, the trial judge indicated the facts supported the charge of robbery, but found the defendant guilty of theft from the person. On June 2,1975, the defendant was sentenced to not less than one nor more than four years in custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. From such conviction, the defendant brings this appeal.\nThe question of the sufficiency of an indictment was considered by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of People v. Love (1923), 310 Ill. 558, 567, 142 N.E. 204, 207, where the court held:\n\u201c \u00b0 \u00b0 \u00b0 [A]n indictment * * * is sufficiently technical and correct if it 0 # \u00b0 states the offense in language sufficiently explicit that the defendant may know the nature of the charge against him * *\nThe indictment in question charged the defendant, by threatening force, took $20 from Cathy Jordan. If this charge is proven by the evidence, reason concludes the totality of these actions undertaken by the defendant stem from an intent to permanently deprive. It would be contrary to experience and reason to conclude a stranger would forcefully take money from another stranger without fully intending to permanently deprive the wronged party of the money.\nWe hold the statutory element of intent under a charge of theft is logically presumed from the charge contained in the indictment in question.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is hereby affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJOHNSON, P. J., and ADESKO, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (William F. Krahl, Jr., and Gail Moreland, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Joan S. Cherry, and Fabian D. Henry, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE BECK, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 62541\nOpinion filed October 6, 1976.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (William F. Krahl, Jr., and Gail Moreland, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Joan S. Cherry, and Fabian D. Henry, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0923-01", "first_page_order": 953, "last_page_order": 954 }