People v. Dinger

29 Citing cases

  1. People v. Herrin

    385 Ill. App. 3d 187 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    We conclude that this pleading was invalid ab initio because the probation officer lacked authority to file it. In People v. Dinger, 136 Ill. 2d 248 (1990), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a defendant could not petition to revoke her own probation. The court specifically observed that "the Unified Code of Corrections contemplates the revocation of an offender's probation only upon the filing by a proper party of a petition charging a violation of a condition of probation."

  2. In re Applications for Tax Deed

    311 Ill. App. 3d 440 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 15 times

    When interpreting a statute, the court should attempt to ascertain the legislative intent and render it effective. See People v. Dinger, 136 Ill.2d 248, 257, 554 N.E.2d 1376, 1379 (1990); Illinois Power Co. v. Mahin, 72 Ill.2d 189, 194, 381 N.E.2d 222, 224 (1978); Christ Hospital Medical Center v. Illinois Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, 295 Ill. App.3d 956, 960, 693 N.E.2d 1237, 1240 (1998). The first step is to look at the plain meaning of the words and to construe them in their context.

  3. In re J.K

    229 Ill. App. 3d 569 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that court is without authority to revoke minor's probation without having before it a petition requesting such relief

    β€’ 3 However, the trial court had no authority to order the State's Attorney's office to file the petition to revoke. Besides violating impartiality ( Pifer, 80 Ill. App.3d at 27), the court's directive violated the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of the government ( People v. Dinger (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 174, 176, aff'd in part (1990), 136 Ill.2d 248, 254-55). Only the prosecutor may initiate the proceeding.

  4. People v. Strickland

    211 Ill. App. 3d 183 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 9 times
    In Strickland, defendant was sentenced in August 1985 to 18 months' probation and ordered to pay court costs, perform public service work and report to the court services department.

    The State has neither the burden of going forward with the evidence nor of proving the desirability of the modification it may be seeking. These views are in accord with the recent decision of the supreme court in People v. Dinger (1990), 136 Ill.2d 248, 257-58, 554 N.E.2d 1376, 1379, wherein the court stated the following: "[M]odification of probation may be made upon the petitioner's showing that there are sufficient reasons to warrant modification of the sentence.

  5. People v. Hunter

    2013 IL 114100 (Ill. 2013)   Cited 108 times
    In Hunter, our supreme court cautioned that whether later charges are based on the same act as the earlier charge is not to be given a "hypertechnical" interpretation.

    We must construe the phrase β€œbased on the same act” in the context of compulsory joinder and not in other situations. See, e.g., People v. Dinger, 136 Ill.2d 248, 257, 144 Ill.Dec. 88, 554 N.E.2d 1376 (1990) (construing specific statutory term in context in which language is used). Indeed, the committee comments observe that β€œthe requirement of a single prosecution is independent of the problem of the number of convictions which may be obtained.”

  6. People v. Terrell

    185 Ill. 2d 467 (Ill. 1998)   Cited 153 times
    Criticizing majority's inconsistent application of waiver doctrine because, inter alia, it "creates confusion for application of the doctrine in future cases"

    Initially, we observe that defendant failed to submit copies of the studies or cite to any other relevant authority as support for his contention and, therefore, the issue is waived. 155 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7); People v. Dinger, 136 Ill.2d 248, 254 (1990). Nevertheless, we note that our prior decisions which rejected defendant's contention also found the Zeisel and Diamond studies unpersuasive.

  7. People v. Thompkins

    161 Ill. 2d 148 (Ill. 1994)   Cited 106 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding the defendant "acquiesced in counsel's view that the defendant should not testify" when the record did not show the defendant "reaffirmed" to defense counsel during trial that he desired to testify

    The defendant presents these points without the benefit of any argument or analysis, however, and we decline to consider them here. (See People v. Dinger (1990), 136 Ill.2d 248, 254.) We note, however, that they are matters that could have been raised on direct appeal, and to that extent we must deem them waived.

  8. People v. Williams

    158 Ill. 2d 62 (Ill. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    In taking this position, the majority ignores the rudimentary principle that the terms of a statute must be construed in the context in which they appear. ( People v. Dinger (1990), 136 Ill.2d 248, 257.) Following this principle, which is fully applicable to our court rules (134 Ill. 2d R. 2(a), Committee Comments), it is manifest that when Rule 505 referred to a "demand" in the above-quoted passage, it meant the type of demand described in the preceding portions of the rule, namely, a demand which had been filed with the clerk at least five days before the date set for the defendant's appearance.

  9. People v. Peeples

    155 Ill. 2d 422 (Ill. 1993)   Cited 246 times
    Finding that, while it disapproved of the prosecutor's reference to the defendant as a " 'human predator' " during opening, the jury was at least twice instructed that opening statements were not evidence, curing any error resulting from the remark

    Thus, we deem the point to be waived. (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7); People v. Dinger (1990), 136 Ill.2d 248, 254.) However, we agree with the trial judge that defendant failed to show that the venire was unconstitutionally selected.

  10. People v. Stark

    2015 Ill. App. 4th 130909 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    ΒΆ 15 Section 5-6-4(f) of the Unified Code provides "[t]he conditions of probation *** may be modified by the court on motion of the supervising agency or on its own motion or at the request of the offender after notice and a hearing." 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(f) (West 2012); see also People v. Dinger, 136 Ill. 2d 248, 257, 554 N.E.2d 1376, 1379 (1990) (stating "modification ofprobation may be made upon the petitioner's showing that there are sufficient reasons to warrant modification of the sentence").