{ "id": 3401659, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BILLY LEE SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sanders", "decision_date": "1977-11-15", "docket_number": "No. 76-362", "first_page": "500", "last_page": "504", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 500" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2499460 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "32-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/29/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5809665 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 876", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5642523 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0876-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 929", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5639791 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "933" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0929-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 952", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5642285 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "958" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0952-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill. App. 3d 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5309986 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/24/0710-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 453, "char_count": 7258, "ocr_confidence": 0.897, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.6609750996465205e-08, "percentile": 0.3529055168853474 }, "sha256": "fe0911e02c42ef2c779d8cd27145e576b346eb229d83a5a9ba62b7610971b655", "simhash": "1:b71be0a83bfdadc5", "word_count": 1200 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:34.806209+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. BILLY LEE SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE RECHENMACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant appeals from a trial court order revoking his probation contending that (1) he was denied due process of law by the trial court\u2019s refusal to suppress a lineup identification which he contends was the result of unfairly suggestive police procedures, and (2) that the sentence of one to 10 years\u2019 imprisonment imposed by the trial court was excessive. We affirm.\nOn January 29, 1975, the defendant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to three years\u2019 probation. On June 6,1975, between 10:15 and 10:30 p.m., Mrs. Ruth Tindell, an elderly woman, left St. Patrick\u2019s church, accompanied by her two daughters, Mrs. Ruth Prutch and Judy Moreland. As they were waiting at the top of a stairlanding, Mrs. Prutch observed a \u201cyoung black boy\u201d with dark trousers, a white print shirt, and an Afro-style haircut walking toward them. That area of the church grounds was well lit, and she observed the individual until he passed within a few feet of her. As the individual passed Mrs. Tindell he grabbed her purse and ran.\nLater that night, Mrs. Tindell, Mrs. Prutch and another witness, were taken to the Winnebago County jail to view a lineup. The witnesses were told that the lineup would contain subjects approximating the height, weight and \u201cgeneral build\u201d of the suspect. The officers told Mrs. Prutch and the other witnesses that there was a possibility that the offender had been wearing a wig, and that he might have removed some of the clothing he had been wearing at the time of the offense.\nThe witnesses were led into a \u201cviewing room\u201d one at a time, where they observed the lineup. The lineup consisted of five Negro subjects, including the defendant. The defendant\u2019s hair was in braids, while the other four subjects\u2019 hair was cut in an \u201cAfro\u201d style. At the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the lineup identification, Mrs. Prutch stated that she viewed the lineup for five to ten minutes; at the probation revocation hearing, she testified that she viewed the lineup for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. After viewing the lineup, she told the officer in charge that she \u201cknew it was No. 1 [the defendant], but he must have changed clothes and had a wig.\u201d The officer replied by instructing her to \u201cdecide which one she thought it was, or which one she was sure it was, and put her answer down.\u201d\nMrs. Prutch also made a positive identification of the defendant at the probation revocation hearing. The defendant testified, denying commission of the offense. He said that he had carried on a phone conversation with his girl friend until 9:50. He then drove to a house, arriving at 10:10. This was corroborated by the defendant\u2019s girl friend, and, to some extent, by the testimony of the defendant\u2019s mother and 12-year-old brother. However, the times and distances involved were such that the trial court found that with \u201cvery minor adjustments\u201d of the testimony of the defense witnesses, \u201ctheir testimony can fairly well be reconciled\u201d with the defendant having committed the offense in question. The trial court found that Mrs. Prutch was \u201ca highly credible witness\u201d who had the opportunity \u201cto see the defendant at different ranges up to two feet in a well lighted area,\u201d and that she identified the defendant \u201cby his facial appearance.\u201d The trial court then found the defendant guilty of the offense.\nThe defendant has argued that the lineup was rendered impermissibly suggestive by the officer\u2019s direction to Mrs. Prutch to \u201cdecide which one it was\u201d (Emphasis added.). The defendant asserts that a police suggestion that the perpetrator of the offense is among those in the lineup, is violative of the rights of the accused. Since, from a practical standpoint, most witnesses without question understand that they would not have been asked to view the lineup, if the police did not have a suspect in the lineup (People v. Martin (1974), 24 Ill. App. 3d 710, 715), we believe that the defendant\u2019s argument is without merit. In any event, there could have been no error in this case, since it is apparent from the record that Mrs. Prutch had already selected the defendant as the offender when the remark was made by the police officer.\nThe defendant also contends that the officer\u2019s suggestion that the perpetrator (who had been described as having an Afro-style haircut) may have been wearing a wig, when coupled with the fact that the defendant was the only subject in the lineup who did not have an Afro-style haircut, rendered the lineup improper. However, under the circumstances of this case, we cannot hold that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the lineup identification. To a considerable extent, the officer\u2019s comment that the offender might have changed clothing, or have been wearing a wig, merely stated the obvious, and it does not appear that the officer\u2019s remarks were a deliberate effort to influence the result of the lineup. Further, Mrs. Prutch\u2019s testimony at the suppression hearing established that she made her identification on the basis of the defendant\u2019s face, rather than his other characteristics. Thus, the trial court had sufficient basis to find that the officer\u2019s remarks did not influence the outcome of the lineup.\nFurther, it is clear that a reversal of the trial court\u2019s order revoking the defendant\u2019s probation would not be proper in this case, even if there were grounds to find the lineup to have been improperly suggestive, since Mrs. Prutch\u2019s identification at trial clearly had an origin independent of the lineup. See, e.g., People v. Moore (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 952, 958; People v. Parks (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 929, 933.\nFinally, the defendant contends that his sentence is excessive. A sentence should not be disturbed unless it clearly constitutes a great departure from the spirit and purpose of the law. (E.g., People v. Doyle (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 876.) The trial court is normally the proper forum in which a suitable sentence is to be determined, and the trial judge is in the best position to observe and evaluate the myriad factors which comprise the sentence determination. (People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 154.) In imposing sentence upon revocation of probation, the trial judge may consider the actions of defendant while on probation, which reasonably bear upon his potential for rehabilitation. (People v. Koppen (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 29, 32-33.) Here the defendant\u2019s commission of the offense of robbery, less than five months after being placed on probation on the burglary charge, reflected very adversely upon his rehabilitative potential, and we therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed..\nSEIDENFELD and GUILD, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE RECHENMACHER" } ], "attorneys": [ "James Canfield, of Canfield Law Offices, of Rockford, for appellant.", "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Phyllis J. Perko and Martin P. Moltz, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BILLY LEE SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 76-362\nOpinion filed November 15, 1977.\nJames Canfield, of Canfield Law Offices, of Rockford, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Phyllis J. Perko and Martin P. Moltz, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0500-01", "first_page_order": 522, "last_page_order": 526 }