Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Smith

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 29, 1994No. 3-92-0752Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice McCUSKEY

I agree with the holding that the defendant’s convictions of burglary and retail theft should be affirmed. Also, I agree with the reasoning for reducing the defendant’s concurrent sentence for retail theft to a term of five years. As a result, I concur with those portions of the opinion.

However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant’s sentence for burglary must be reduced to a term of seven years. Nor do I find that it was error to impose a Class X sentence for burglary under section 5 — 5—3(c)(8) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 5—3(c)(8) (West…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. ContrerasAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
  2. People v. HarrisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1994
  3. People v. ColeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
  4. People v. NewellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1994
  5. People v. MurphyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1994

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API