Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2024If, however, there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective, the defendant’s offenses are not part of an unrelated course of conduct, and an extended-term sentence may be imposed only on those offenses within the most serious class.” Id. 354-55 . ¶ 33 “The test to be used in determining whether a particular offense is part of a single course of conduct, during which there was no *** change in the nature of the criminal objective, is the independent motivation test; that is, were the defendant’s acts independently motivated?” People v. Harris, 220 Ill. 2001“The test to be used in determining whether a particular offense is part of a single course of conduct, during which there was no *** change in the nature of the criminal objective, is the independent motivation test; that is, were the defendant’s acts independently motivated?” People v. Harris, 220 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
The PEOPLE v. Whittingtongreen2 sentences2000See generally People v. Whittington, 46 Ill. 2d 405, 409-10 , 265 N.E.2d 679, 681-82 (1970) (finding defendant could not receive consecutive sentences because theft was not independently motivated from offense of escape). 2000See generally People v. Whittington, 46 Ill. 2d 405, 409-10 , 265 N.E.2d 679, 681-82 (1970) (finding defendant could not receive consecutive sentences because theft was not independently motivated from offense of escape). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kinggreen2 sentences1985The King court expressly rejected the motivation test of Stewart, Williams, and Prim as being the proper standard for determining whether multiple convictions and multiple concurrent sentences could be imposed. ( People v. King (1977), 66 Ill.2d 551, 566 , 363 N.E.2d 838, 844 .) The separate acts held to give rise to a single offense in Prim were almost simultaneous, while the formation of the agreement here was neither charged or proved to be closely related in time to the conduct giving rise to the attempt. 1985The King court expressly rejected the motivation test of Stewart, Williams, and Prim as being the proper standard for determining whether multiple convictions and multiple concurrent sentences could be imposed. ( People v. King (1977), 66 Ill.2d 551, 566 , 363 N.E.2d 838, 844 .) The separate acts held to give rise to a single offense in Prim were almost simultaneous, while the formation of the agreement here was neither charged or proved to be closely related in time to the conduct giving rise to the attempt. | 1 | 11 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1984The court in that case did hold that a burglary conviction based upon an entry with intent to commit a theft must be vacated if the defendant was also convicted of committing an armed robbery inside the home, because the entry was made with the purpose of committing a theft by means of armed robbery, that is to say, the two offenses were not independently motivated. ( 60 Ill. 2d 1, 13-14 .) However, in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , the court considered People v. Williams (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 1, 322 , N.E.2d 819, and abandoned the independent motivation test insofar as it applied to sep 1984The court in that case did hold that a burglary conviction based upon an entry with intent to commit a theft must be vacated if the defendant was also convicted of committing an armed robbery inside the home, because the entry was made with the purpose of committing a theft by means of armed robbery, that is to say, the two offenses were not independently motivated. ( 60 Ill. 2d 1, 13-14 .) However, in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , the court considered People v. Williams (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 1, 322 , N.E.2d 819, and abandoned the independent motivation test insofar as it applied to sep | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bolegreen1 sentence1995In Bole, the supreme court stated that it was unclear whether the statutory language "during which there is no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective” was meant to define, limit or merely describe the phrase "single course of conduct.” (Bole, 155 Ill. 2d at 193 (holding that it was not necessary to decide the meaning of this phrase because there was no change in criminal objective in the case before it; the defendant in that case had been charged with only multiple offenses of the same crime).) After Bole, the court in People v. Toliver (1993), 251 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ingram
green
2 sentences1995App. 3d 495 , 405 N.E.2d 864 , the court stated that "[t]he test to be used in determining whether a particular offense is part of a single course of conduct, during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective, is the independent motivation test; that is, were the defendant’s acts independently motivated?” Given the supreme court’s subsequent decision in Bole, however, it is uncertain whether Harris states the proper test for determining a single course of conduct under section 5 — 8—4. 1991People v. Ingram (1980), 84 Ill. | 3 | 1983–1995 |
People v. Daniel
green
2 sentences2001This issue was also recently discussed and interpreted in People v. Daniel , 311 Ill. 2001This issue was also recently discussed and interpreted in People v. Daniel, 311 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Giles v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences1979Our supreme court recently rejected the independent motivation test in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 , 363 N.E.2d 838 , cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894 , 54 L. 1978The independent motivation test was rejected in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , 363 N.E.2d 838 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 894 , 54 L. | 2 | 1978–1979 |
Friedberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Our supreme court recently rejected the independent motivation test in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 , 363 N.E.2d 838 , cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894 , 54 L. 1978The independent motivation test was rejected in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , 363 N.E.2d 838 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 894 , 54 L. | 2 | 1978–1979 |
Wylie v. U. S. Health & Accident Ins.
green
2 sentences1979Ed. 2d 181 , 98 S. Ct. 273 . 1978Ed. 2d 181 , 98 S. Ct. 273 (1977), as a standard for determining whether multiple convictions and concurrent sentences are permissible. | 2 | 1978–1979 |
People v. Bell
green
2 sentences2001This test was adopted by our supreme court in People v. Bell, 196 Ill.2d 343 , 256 Ill.Dec. 306 , 751 N.E.2d 1143 (2001). 2001This test was adopted by our supreme court in People v. Bell, 196 Ill.2d 343 , 256 Ill.Dec. 306 , 751 N.E.2d 1143 (2001). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Toliver
green
1 sentence1995In Bole, the supreme court stated that it was unclear whether the statutory language "during which there is no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective” was meant to define, limit or merely describe the phrase "single course of conduct.” (Bole, 155 Ill. 2d at 193 (holding that it was not necessary to decide the meaning of this phrase because there was no change in criminal objective in the case before it; the defendant in that case had been charged with only multiple offenses of the same crime).) After Bole, the court in People v. Toliver (1993), 251 Ill. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
West v. West
green
2 sentences1993(Stoermer v. Edgar (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 287 , 472 N.E.2d 400 ; West v. West (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 226 , 390 N.E.2d 880 .) However, under Rule 272, no judgment, even one announced from the bench in the parties’ presence, is final until the court complies with its procedural commands. 1993(Stoermer v. Edgar (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 287 , 472 N.E.2d 400 ; West v. West (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 226 , 390 N.E.2d 880 .) However, under Rule 272, no judgment, even one announced from the bench in the parties’ presence, is final until the court complies with its procedural commands. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Stoermer v. Edgar
green
2 sentences1993(Stoermer v. Edgar (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 287 , 472 N.E.2d 400 ; West v. West (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 226 , 390 N.E.2d 880 .) However, under Rule 272, no judgment, even one announced from the bench in the parties’ presence, is final until the court complies with its procedural commands. 1993(Stoermer v. Edgar (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 287 , 472 N.E.2d 400 ; West v. West (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 226 , 390 N.E.2d 880 .) However, under Rule 272, no judgment, even one announced from the bench in the parties’ presence, is final until the court complies with its procedural commands. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Paino
green
1 sentence1991App. 3d 645 , 484 N.E.2d 1106 .) The test to be used in determining whether a particular offense is part of a single course of conduct, during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective, is the independent motivation test; that is, were the defendant’s acts independently motivated? | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Graves
neutral
1 sentence1984(See People v. Graves (1977), 54 Ill. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
The PEOPLE v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1978King has expressly replaced the independent motivation standard originally set forth in People v. Stewart (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 310 , 259 N.E.2d 24 . 1978King has expressly replaced the independent motivation standard originally set forth in People v. Stewart (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 310 , 259 N.E.2d 24 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In Re Taylor
green
1 sentence1977We note that in the recent opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , 363 N.E.2d 845 , it was held “that when more than one offense arises from a series of incidental or closely related acts and the offenses are not, by definition, lesser included offenses, convictions with concurrent sentences can be entered.” ( 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 .) The so-called independent motivation test has been rejected. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Swank
neutral
2 sentences1977See People v. Williams, 60 Ill.2d 1 , 322 N.E.2d 819 ; People v. Swank, 20 Ill.App.3d 1079 , 314 N.E.2d 32 . 1977See People v. Williams, 60 Ill. 2d 1 , 322 N.E.2d 819 ; People v. Swank, 20 Ill. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.