*1 of that ruling court absent a an abuse of discretion. showing of record establishes no such abuse. record,
Upon this reasonably we must observe that there could not be a misapprehension rather misrepresentation gives but the record strong indication that of lesser defendant had misplaced hope punishment and he his failure to receive lighter punishment sought to withdraw the of the Circuit Court plea. Douglas is affirmed. County
Judgment affirmed.
SMITH, P. TRAPP, J., concur. J., v. Freddie L. of the State Plaintiff-Appellee, of Illinois,
White, Defendant-Appellant.
(No. 11303;
Fourth District March *2 CRAVEN, part. J. Zwick, Director,
Morton Project, Executive Illinois Defender Moran, Chicago, (Matthew Director, Illinois Defender Pro Deputy J. ject, of counsel,) appellant. Greanias, BasH G. Decatur, State’s Attorney, of for the People. OPINION AS MODIFIED ON ORDER OF COURT
MARCH TRAPP delivered the the court: A jury found defendant Sentence guHty forgery. imposed minimum of 4 years and a maximum of 14 Defendant years. appeals.
Upon appeal is urged sufficient to that indictment was not offense; charge the that denial of a motion for directed verdict close of the reversal; State’s evidence was error requiring trial court considered sentence and that imposing the sentence is excessive for the six dollar check. forgery ($6.00) it faffed identify indictment is said to be void in that the instrument was delivered. The information alleges address, date, Station”, “at with stated specified Star Service defendant, defraud, defivered knowingly with intent to document manner that apparently another in such capable defrauding it purported to have when in fact it Douglas, been made E. by James * * not, such check as follows: with being figures words in haec verba. the instrument thereafter set out an employee the check was defivered to Jones, The evidence is that es- the latter was not identifying An aHegation the Service Station. raised at the a defense for no real issue sential to the preparation of the check. It is the execution trial denied for the same conduct and further subsequent prosecutions be there had to who “the actual victim” of defendant at the instance of Jones, name was whose of Douglas, at the instance good, make the check White, name maker, appeared whose or of another Freddie signed the back of the check. of the in view of argument provisions is not persuasive Code, 3(b), Criminal Stat. Ill. Rev. same are known provides that if from the conduct several offenses at commencing prosecution officers the time of prosecuting
are court, within offenses must of a such several jurisdiction single prosecuted in a in the interests single unless the justice, orders trials. prosecutions the several separate potential argued are apparent from the out in the information. instrument set conviction or
Again, the defense in bar of a subsequent be raised from the record charged may prose cution. As stated in Ill. at Brady, 126, the court said: and cause of the
“It further contended the nature accusation are stated in the indictment so as to enable the defendants not sufficiently in bar of a for the plead subsequent prosecution same offense. Under the whether the indictment present practice, is for the in a former indictment under charged same offense as which there *3 a final determined has been is not an by inspection indictments, of a the under comparison plea setting the former up bar. The judgment in defense of former may conviction be made under the of not and on the trial plea guilty, the ac- party cused and the particular by be shown testimony.” parol Hawkinson, 285, 318, 324 Ill. the held The court People In a evidence in former conviction as showing that the record is competent bar. See also 59 plea Petropoulos, 208 Ill.App.2d 323; 200 N.E.2d 411. De King, Ill.App.2d N.E.2d Crouch, 485,194 that The argues fendant There, court held that it was sufficient to this contention. the supports of charging forgery. intent to defraud allege general speaking the bar further the court noted that the to whom person the instrument was delivered named the indictment. The lan of does not the guage opinion suggest naming the person was made is a alternative to an intent required whom alleging to defraud a It is noted that no found specific person. language statutory 17 — 3 or in ch. Ill — 3 par. defining forgery, stating ch. offense, the for an requirements charging (Ill.
pars. requires naming 17 — 3 3) an instrument is with intent to defraud. delivered the State’s Defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of denial of was filed but not It is now argued. that, in an motion was error because the trial court was aware motion, answer defendant’s the State’s had notice Attorney given an oral confession and that one to such oral confession of the witnesses was a evi- agent. Such oral confession was not introduced into parole dence.
It is contended that at the for directed verdict was time the motion made, there was not sufficient evidence to establish the elements forgery, but that knowledge these matters well have improperly influenced the trial court on motion for directed verdict”. This argument is without The statement made in behalf merit. opening check, of the defendant concedes that defendant made and delivered the but that it was not intended to argued defraud. Thus the issue now not exist at the trial. in the argued record con Nothing supports non-existent, oral clusion confession was or that the State’s At torney’s notice of such oral confession was filed. improperly
It is contended finally that the sentence is and that the court considered sentence. In time of the statement of the State’s picked up Attorney effect that the jury testimony defendant’s rejected and, of the occurrence found him The court guilty perjury. noted the properly contents of the record that defendant had sen- tenced to a term 2 for years another he had served forgery; 2Vz years before being paroled and was still on at the time of this offense. The record also shows defendant’s consecutive sentence The court theft. said:
“It would be unreasonable in the same way impose penalty as on the because the matter is more prior disposition aggravated by matter The is more the circumstances of repetition. aggravated by forth.” so Scott v. the court is matter of concern. In latter statement The 264, the court commented that sentencing U.S. 419 F.2d court considered that such reviewing “deliberately defendant lied”. influence the choice of sentence impose expression for the substantive offense additional punishment *4 in defense the risk testifies his own assumes noted that one who him and that he prosecuted will not believe jury have the of a criminal How- would trial. protection Such is, in enhanced for ever, alleged if a sentence perjury trial, is denied the trial right the defendant during to have occurred allow a The court concluded that trial court such offense. “* * # would need enhance sentence because of belief of perjury, in his behalf”. In accused from own lessly discourage testifying Adkins, expressly 41 Ill.2d showed noted which aggravation that he not consider had not that defendant had confessed to crimes for which he doubt whether charged. the court’s leaves factors were factors together considered with the acceptable be considered in sentence. fixing Crews, 231 N.E.2d sentence, in considered information not in the record certain
as evidence. The but va Court there affirmed the conviction Supreme cated the sentence and remanded the sentence. cause for a new affirmed,
Judgment sentence vacated remanded.
SMITH, P. J., concurs. CRAVEN in in part:
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction. for further Remendment sentencing seems in unnecessary view of this court to authority reduce the sentence that was imposed.
A reduction of sentence is warranted. A sentence than four of not less years nor more than fourteen years in the is in penitentiary view of the offense and the offender. While the is the in- forgery, strument involved is a check. felony $6.00 The offender has forgery of a $47.74 check 1966. He was on conviction— time of the instant offense. It is at least intimated by the record that the of the sentence severity
was affected court’s drat determination circumstances so forth.” arose during the trial of the At case. least could be argued that such was an item considered in See aggravation. People Moriarty Ill.2d 185 N.E.2d which has some language discussing the point. Crews,
In the case of cited in the majority the re- opinion, mandment was for the correcting evidentiary purpose procedures matters hearing aggravation and mitigation. Such issue no, it, not I does the understand con- majority further evidence template aggravation mitigation the trial court. the convcition but reduce the
This court should affirm both maximum, under and acting pursuant the minimum and the the au- Court Rule 615 (Ill. what is now thority Supreme 110A, 615). sec.