Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Tucker

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 20, 1981No. 79-643Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Hopf

I concur with the majority in affirming the conviction of the defendant of the crimes as charged. As to the question of the propriety of the trial court’s procedure in sentencing the defendant to consecutive terms in the State penitentiary, I dissent.

At the sentencing hearing the court noted that consecutive sentences could not be imposed unless it was “# * "of the opinion that such terms were required to protect the public from further criminal conduct.” This is not an entirely correct statement of the law. Section 5 — 8—4(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. BoldenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978
  2. People v. HenryAppellate Court of Illinois · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API