People v. Gum

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Dixon

    91 Ill. 2d 346 (Ill. 1982)   Cited 249 times
    Holding appellate court was authorized, upon reversing sentenced convictions, to remand for imposition of a sentence on remaining convictions

    We note that there is a conflict in the appellate court on this issue. Compare People v. Gum (4th Dist. 1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 298, and People v. Dixon (2d Dist. 1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 1201 (Rule 23 order), with People v. Riley (1st Dist. 1980), 89 Ill. App.3d 438, and People v. Dean (5th Dist. 1978), 61 Ill. App.3d 612.

  2. People v. Riley

    89 Ill. App. 3d 438 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 7 times

    See footnote 1, page 439. In support of his argument defendant cites People v. Gum (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 298, 407 N.E.2d 806, appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill.2d 595, a recent Fourth District decision. There the appellate court held that a reviewing court does not have jurisdiction to remand a cause to impose sentence on a conviction for which no sentence was originally imposed, where the defendant has not appealed that conviction.

  3. People v. Perez

    101 Ill. App. 3d 64 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 15 times

    " Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005-5-3.2(b). We initially note that either or both of those factors will support the imposition of an extended term. ( People v. Gum (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 298, 407 N.E.2d 806; People v. Peddicord (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 414, 407 N.E.2d 89.) It is defendant's position that the factors must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he asserts as to factor (1) that the State introduced a certified copy of the conviction of Antonio Perez, but that nowhere on it was the name of Anthony Perez. Relying solely on People v. Langdon (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 881, 392 N.E.2d 142, he argues that the prior conviction of defendant here was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.