{
  "id": 3232065,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCHIE BRUNKHORST, JR., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brunkhorst",
  "decision_date": "1980-01-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 79-328",
  "first_page": "815",
  "last_page": "817",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 815"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5108471
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/52/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 N.E.2d 670",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 3d 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5581330
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/71/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 N.E.2d 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5809665
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/68/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 N.E.2d 1079",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 3d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3280293
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/76/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.E.2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2970812
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/62/0323-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3973,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.861,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.684962270766813e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5293071140441007
    },
    "sha256": "cfba3656cbc838cec80f4f330474645aebe91192139f8e45f4fde6aa9d6aab91",
    "simhash": "1:f7ae2539419a1cd5",
    "word_count": 692
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:24.666127+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. ARCHIE BRUNKHORST, JR., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE KASSERMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Archie Brunkhorst, Jr., was convicted of reckless conduct and unlawful use of weapons by a jury in the Circuit Court of Randolph County. The convictions arose out of a shooting incident in which defendant shot the victim in the mouth in a dispute over a quarter in a tavern in Chester, Illinois. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 364 days imprisonment. Defendant has sought leave to file a supplemental brief in which he questions the propriety of the trial court\u2019s order that he pay restitution, and this court has granted the motion.\nRelying on People v. Breen (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 323, 342 N.E.2d 31, and People v. Lumley (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 221, 394 N.E.2d 1079, defendant contends that he could not be sentenced to imprisonment and also ordered to pay a fine and restitution. Breen and Lumley were decided pursuant to the law in effect prior to the recent amendments to the . Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1977 & 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1003 \u2014 1\u20141 et seq.). Section 5 \u2014 5\u20143(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections, as amended (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005\u2014 5 \u2014 3(b)) allows a court to impose alone, or in combination, a term of imprisonment, a fine, or an order directing the offender to make restitution to the victim under section 5 \u2014 5\u20146 of the amended Unified Code of Corrections. Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 24 \u2014 1(a)(8) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1(a)(8)), which provides for a minimum sentence of imprisonment for one day (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1(b)). Section 5 \u2014 5\u20143(c)(2) of the Unified Code of Corrections, as amended, (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005\u2014 5 \u2014 3(c)(2)) provides that in addition to a sentence of imprisonment for violation of section 24 \u2014 1(a)(8) of the Criminal Code of 1961, the court \u201cmay order a fine or restitution or both in conjunction with such term of imprisonment.\u201d Therefore, we find no error in the court\u2019s sentencing defendant to pay restitution.\nDefendant further contends that his sentence is excessive. We have examined the entire record on appeal and find that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion (People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 368 N.E.2d 882), nor has defendant rebutted the presumption that the sentence was proper (People v. Choate (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 267, 389 N.E.2d 670).\nDefendant lastly contends that the court improperly assessed defendant $71 in witness fees as part of the costs of prosecution. In Corbin v. People (1893), 52 Ill. App. 355, the court ruled that witness fees properly could be assessed as costs of the prosecution upon a defendant who was found guilty. We are of the opinion that Corbin is still the law of Illinois and that the trial court in the case at bar properly imposed the witness fees as part of the costs of prosecution pursuant to section 47 of \u201cAn Act concerning fees and salaries \u00b0 \u00b0 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 53, par. 65) and section 13 of division XIV of the Criminal Code of 1874 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 180 \u2014 3). Illinois courts have historically assessed witness fees as part of the costs of prosecution, and we find no reason to overrule Corbin and the foregoing practice.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we find no error in sentencing, and we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Randolph County.\nAffirmed.\nHARRISON and SPOMER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE KASSERMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Reid and E. William Hutton, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.",
      "William A. Schuwerk, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Chester (Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., and William S. Zale, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCHIE BRUNKHORST, JR., Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 79-328\nOpinion filed January 11, 1980.\nJohn H. Reid and E. William Hutton, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nWilliam A. Schuwerk, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Chester (Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., and William S. Zale, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0815-01",
  "first_page_order": 837,
  "last_page_order": 839
}