Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Davis

252 Ill. App. 3d 812 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Davis

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Hibbler

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 160897 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 102 times
    In Hibbler, the court "fail[ed] to indicate if the restitution was to be paid in a lump sum or installments," but the defendant did not object.

    When considering if the defendant "threatened serious harm," the sentencing court compares the conduct in the case before it against the minimum conduct necessary to commit the offense. See People v. Davis , 252 Ill. App. 3d 812, 814, 191 Ill.Dec. 547, 624 N.E.2d 396, 398 (1993) ; People v. Ellis , 401 Ill. App. 3d 727, 731, 341 Ill.Dec. 166, 929 N.E.2d 1245, 1248-49 (2010). A trial court must examine "the nature and circumstances of the offense, including the nature and extent of each element of the offense as committed by the defendant [citations]."

  2. People v. Goss

    2024 Ill. App. 5th 230384 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    However, the threat of serious harm is not implicit in every armed robbery. See People v. Davis, 252 Ill.App.3d 812, 814 (1993). Moreover, with regard to the offense of aggravated discharge of a firearm, which "requires only that the defendant fire at a person or a vehicle he knows to be occupied" (People v. Torres, 269 Ill.App.3d 339, 350 (1995); 720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2) (West 2020)), "not every aggravated discharge of a firearm threatens the same amount of harm." People v. Ellis, 401 Ill.App.3d 727, 731 (2010).

  3. People v. Walker

    392 Ill. App. 3d 277 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 57 times
    Finding that a potential sentence of nine years' imprisonment was serious

    Burge, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 90. In People v. Davis, 252 Ill. App. 3d 812 (1993), the appellate court held that the sentencing court did not err in considering the degree of harm threatened in an armed robbery case, where the defendant ordered a store clerk to perform various tasks, while the defendant pointed a gun at the clerk's head. Davis, 252 Ill. App. 3d at 815-16. By contrast, in the case at bar, there was no evidence that defendant brandished his weapon in front of others or forced the victim to perform tasks at gunpoint.

  4. People v. Cross

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 170481 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    When considering if the defendant "threatened serious harm," the sentencing court compares the conduct in the case before it against the minimum conduct necessary to commit the offense. See People v. Hibbler, 2019 IL App (4th) 160897 ¶ 67; People v. Davis, 252 Ill. App. 3d 812, 814, 624 N.E.2d 396, 398 (1993); People v. Ellis, 401 Ill. App. 3d 727, 731, 929 N.E.2d 1245, 1248-49 (2010). A trial court must examine "the nature and circumstances of the offense, including the nature and extent of each element of the offense as committed by the defendant [citations]."

  5. People v. Burge

    254 Ill. App. 3d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 34 times
    Stating "every reference by the sentencing court to a factor implicit in the offense does not constitute reversible error"

    Gray, 212 Ill. App.3d at 617; see also People v. Smith (1982), 105 Ill. App.3d 639. In People v. Davis (1993), 252 Ill. App.3d 812, 814, this court stated that "the threat of serious harm is not implicit in every armed robbery, as is the receipt of proceeds in every theft." (Emphasis in original.)