Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. J.A.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 9, 1982No. 81-701Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

While I agree with the majority’s decision on the merits, I believe that the disposition of the case, i.e., vacating the defendant’s sentence, is not required. Neither party has presented a mootness argument on appeal. In my opinion, we as a court of review should exercise judicial restraint in matters of sentencing and not lightly declare sua sponte that a sentence “has been rendered moot by a lapse of time.”

A moot question has been defined as one that once existed but, because of the happening of some event, has ceased to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. DawsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API