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. Hansen

132 Ill. App. 2d 911 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Hansen

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Kline

    92 Ill. 2d 490 (Ill. 1982)   Cited 82 times
    Holding the language in article 1, section 7, required an accused by provided a prompt determination on probably cause of the initial charge either at a preliminary hearing or by grand-jury indictment

    It is the defendant's burden to produce a record from which a rational comparison of sentences can be made. ( People v. Gangestad (1982), 105 Ill. App.3d 774; People v. Holman (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 56; People v. Hansen (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 911; People v. Haynes (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 130.) Because he has failed to do this, we cannot determine, as we must, whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence.

  2. People v. Johnson

    388 N.E.2d 1320 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    ( People v. Holman (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 56, 61, 356 N.E.2d 1115, 1118.) However, a defendant who contends that fundamental fairness requires a reduction of a disparate sentence has the burden to produce a record from which a rational comparison can be made. ( People v. Hansen (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 911, 914, 270 N.E.2d 137, 139.) First of all, we note that defendant has failed to include in the record on appeal, or to account for the absence of, transcripts of his co-defendants' guilty pleas and sentencing hearings.

  3. People v. Holman

    356 N.E.2d 1115 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Holman (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 56, 356 N.E.2d 1115, a statement to police by one defendant admitted that defendants were in Aurora and so differed from the evidence introduced upon the question of time.

    ( People v. Henne (1973), 10 Ill. App.3d 179.) However, one who contends that fundamental fairness requires reduction of a disparate sentence has the burden to produce a record from which a rational comparison can be made. ( People v. Hansen, (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 911; People v. Haynes (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 130.) Though defendants have filed a supplemental record containing the co-indictee's conviction record, they have not provided, nor have they accounted for their failure to provide, this court with such records as the co-indictee's guilty plea hearing, sentencing hearing, or the mittimus for his conviction and sentence. We therefore find that defendants have not carried their burden of presenting a sufficient record from which a rational comparison of the sentences can be made.

  4. People v. Loomis

    132 Ill. App. 2d 903 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 7 times
    In Loomis, we merely held that the trial court may consider defendant's behavior during his incarceration prior to the original sentencing hearing. Loomis, 132 Ill. App.2d at 905.

    There is no record of Darwin's hearing before us and, therefore, defendants have not sustained their burden of presenting a sufficient basis from which the sentences may be compared. (See People v. Haynes (1971), 266 N.E.2d 172, 174; People v. Hansen (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d. See also, People v. Whittington (1970), 265 N.E.2d 679, 681.