People v. Keating

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Daniels

    634 N.E.2d 4 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)

    We will therefore only reduce a defendant's sentence in cases where the trial court has abused its discretion. ( People v. Keating (1993), 252 Ill. App.3d 801, 803.) A sentence is an abuse of discretion by reason of its excessiveness only if it is contrary to the purpose and spirit of the law or if it is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.

  2. People v. Davis

    260 Ill. App. 3d 176 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 56 times
    Finding that other crimes evidence was admissible where the other crime occurred more than 20 years prior to the charged offense

    A reviewing court's power to alter or reduce a sentence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(4) ( 134 Ill. 2 d R. 615(b)(4)) is limited to those cases in which a trial court has abused its discretion. ( People v. Keating (1993), 252 Ill. App.3d 801, 803.) Defendant contends that the trial court neglected to consider the objective of restoring defendant to useful citizenship and failed to impose a sentence which balances the rehabilitation potential of the offender with the need to protect society.

  3. People v. Dominguez

    255 Ill. App. 3d 995 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 40 times
    Noting that a court's decision is entitled to deference unless the court “ignore pertinent mitigating factors”

    Even though a reviewing court might have weighed the sentencing factors differently, its power to alter or reduce a sentence is limited to those cases in which the trial court has abused its discretion. People v. Keating (1993), 252 Ill. App.3d 801, 803. In general, similarly situated defendants should not receive grossly disparate sentences.