¶ 27 The three primary cases relied on by defendant are distinguishable, because in each case the defendant's probation violation was premised on the commission of criminal conduct that the trial court improperly commingled with the offense for which the defendant was being sentenced. For instance, in People v. Carney, 3 Ill. App. 3d 24 (1971), the defendant pleaded guilty to robbery, based on taking $2 and a money changer from an individual, and was placed on probation.
Defendant further contends that the sentence imposed was excessive. We do not agree. As pointed out by defendant citing People v. Carney, 3 Ill. App.3d 24, 278 N.E.2d 484, reviewing courts do have the power to reduce sentences imposed by the trial courts. (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, § 615(b)(4).)
The second is relevant to the sentence imposed, if probation is revoked." People v. Lewis, 3 Ill. App.3d 144, 147, 278 N.E.2d 267, 268, and People v. Carney, 3 Ill. App.3d 24, 278 N.E.2d 484. • 2 Subsequently, however, a different division of the court for the same district in a similar case set forth a rule we deem to be correct:
The second is relevant to the sentence to be imposed, if probation is revoked." People v. Carney, 3 Ill. App.3d 24, 26. In the present case, this would mean that the sentence given the defendant should have been for the original burglary conviction, and not to punish him for any subsequent conduct that occurred in Missouri.