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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2025 4 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. O'NEALgreen2 sentences2021“If the record does not reflect that the trial court took mitigating factors into account, including a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and the record does not support the trial court’s determination that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Id. (citing People v. O’Neal, 125 Ill. 2d 291 , 298- 301 (1988)). 2013People v. O’Neal, 125 Ill. 2d 291, 298-301 (1988). ¶ 37 We initially consider defendant’s point that the trial court “did not even explain why it imposed consecutive sentences until the hearing on the motion to reconsider the sentence.” Our review of the original sentencing hearing reflects that, although the trial court did not expressly explain in so many words its reasons for imposing the consecutive sentences, it did discuss the various aspects of defendant’s conduct, history, and character, both aggravating and mitigating, relevant to its decision to impose consecutive sentences for the p | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Buckner
green
2 sentences2025“If the record does not reflect that the trial court took mitigating factors into account, including a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and the record does not support the trial court’s determination that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Id. 2024“If the record does not reflect that the trial court took mitigating factors into account, including a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and the record does not support the trial court’s determination that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Id. ¶ 202 We find People v. Carter, 272 Ill. | 4 | 2021–2025 |
People v. Sanders
green
1 sentence2024App. 3d 809 (1995), and People v. Sanders, 356 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2024“If the record does not reflect that the trial court took mitigating factors into account, including a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and the record does not support the trial court’s determination that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Id. ¶ 202 We find People v. Carter, 272 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Willis
green
1 sentence2020People v. Willis, 2013 IL App (1st) 110233, ¶ 123 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2013Rogers, 364 Ill. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.