People v. Vahle

17 Citing cases

  1. People v. Baptist

    284 Ill. App. 3d 382 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 14 times

    We first note that reducing a defendant's good-time credit is analogous to revoking parole, because it changes the conditions of a defendant's incarceration. Parole revocation does not violate the double jeopardy clause ( United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 137, 66 L.Ed.2d 328, 346, 101 S.Ct. 426, 437 (1980); People v. Vahle, 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 395, 376 N.E.2d 766, 769 (1978)) because parole and probation are part of the original sentence ( Brown, 59 F.3d at 104-05). Their continuance is conditioned on compliance with stated conditions, and if the defendant does not comply with those conditions, parole and probation may be revoked.

  2. People v. Newell

    105 Ill. App. 3d 330 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that attempt to pry open a window constituted a substantial step

    The sole issue presented for review by the State is whether it is required to delay probation revocation proceedings until a trial is had on the criminal offense which constituted the violation of probation. Illinois courts have consistently held that the State may seek both a revocation of defendant's probation and a criminal conviction based on the same conduct. ( People v. Smith (1980), 87 Ill. App.3d 526, 409 N.E.2d 157; People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766.) They have also recognized that defendant has no right, nor is the State obliged, to have probation revocation proceedings delayed until a trial is had on the criminal offense which constitutes a violation of probation. ( People v. Huff (1976), 44 Ill. App.3d 273, 357 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Harkness (1975), 34 Ill. App.3d 1, 339 N.E.2d 545.) The supreme court has held, however, that under the principle of collateral estoppel the State is barred from proceeding on a probation revocation where defendant was acquitted of the same charge.

  3. People v. Ward

    80 Ill. App. 3d 253 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 16 times
    Rejecting the defendant's argument that punishing him for a theft conviction and revoking his prior burglary probation on the basis of that theft conviction constituted double jeopardy

    The appellant argues that punishing him for his theft conviction and revoking his probation on the basis of that conviction constitutes double jeopardy. The appellant acknowledges that the settled law in this State is that jeopardy does not attach at a revocation hearing. ( People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766; People v. Howell (1977), 46 Ill. App.3d 300, 360 N.E.2d 1212; People v. Warne (1976), 39 Ill. App.3d 894, 350 N.E.2d 836.) Instead, he argues that the law should be changed.

  4. People v. Bone

    82 Ill. 2d 282 (Ill. 1980)   Cited 26 times

    In his brief defendant states that he does not contest "well established Illinois law which holds double jeopardy does not exist when properly conducted probation revocation hearings are followed by trials on the same subject matter. See People v. Howell, 46 Ill. App.3d 300, 360 N.E.2d 1212 (5th Dist. 1977); People v. Vahle, 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766 (4th Dist. 1978)." He argues that the probation-revocation hearing here "was not conducted in a legitimate manner but rather in a way that offended the principles of fairness and finality that are the embodiment of the double jeopardy clause.

  5. People v. Galba

    273 Ill. App. 3d 95 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that under section 3 of the Act, "a defendant cannot be committed as a sexually dangerous person and simultaneously criminally punished for the same underlying acts giving rise to the finding of dangerousness"

    This court held the guilty plea was no bar to revocation of his conditional release based on the same act. We compared this situation to a probation revocation wherein a person may be criminally prosecuted for an offense and have his probation revoked premised on the same offense. (See People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766.) We noted the issue was whether the respondent violated the conditions of his release.

  6. People v. Oetgen

    269 Ill. App. 3d 1000 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    First, it has been held that double jeopardy does not apply to proceedings under the Act because those proceedings are civil rather than criminal. ( People v. McDonald (1989), 186 Ill. App.3d 1096, 542 N.E.2d 1266.) Second, in the context of probation revocation proceedings, it has been held that a defendant can be criminally prosecuted for an offense and have his probation revoked in another case for the same offense. ( People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766; People v. Ward (1980), 80 Ill. App.3d 253, 399 N.E.2d 728.) In Vahle, this court explained that at the revocation proceeding the defendant was being tried for violating the terms of his probation, not for the substantive offense.

  7. People v. Allegri

    127 Ill. App. 3d 1041 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    Discussing minimal due process requirements

    A defendant may have his probation revoked and subsequently be convicted for the substantive offense without double jeopardy being involved. ( People v. Smith (1980), 87 Ill. App.3d 526, 409 N.E.2d 157; People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766.) A defendant need not be indicted, prosecuted, or convicted of the offense forming the basis of the revocation proceeding.

  8. People v. Free

    112 Ill. App. 3d 449 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 22 times
    In People v. Free, 112 Ill. App.3d 449, 68 Ill. Dec. 81, 84, 445 N.E.2d 529, 532 (4th Dist. 1983), the Illinois Appellate Court looked to the report of the drafting committee of the 1961 Criminal Code in determining that the exceptions were intended to be limited to "special circumstances."

    The State maintains that the credit should only be that time from defendant's arrest until a hold order was issued by the Department of Corrections pursuant to proceedings to revoke defendant's parole. The State relies upon People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766. There, unlike here, the defendant had been released on bail prior to being taken into custody for an alleged probation violation. Here, defendant was in custody when the order was issued.

  9. State v. Williams

    131 Ariz. 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    First, the rule is correct in its assumption that if the defendant's probation is revoked based upon the commission of a subsequent criminal act, such a revocation does not bar a criminal trial based upon that same criminal action. People v. Vahle, 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 17 Ill.Dec. 620, 376 N.E.2d 766 (1978). This principle is conceded in our original opinion.

  10. People v. Fugitt

    87 Ill. App. 3d 1044 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 10 times

    Following a hearing on January 23, 1980, the defendant's probation was revoked. • 1 The defendant admits the courts of this State have consistently held that the State may seek both a revocation of a defendant's probation and a criminal conviction based on the same conduct. ( People v. Ward (1980), 80 Ill. App.3d 253, 399 N.E.2d 728, appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill.2d 598; People v. Vahle (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 391, 376 N.E.2d 766; People v. Howell (1977), 46 Ill. App.3d 300, 360 N.E.2d 1212; People v. Warne (1976), 39 Ill. App.3d 894, 350 N.E.2d 836, cert. denied (1977), 429 U.S. 1107, 51 L.Ed.2d 559, 97 S.Ct. 1139.) However, the defendant asks that we follow the reasoning of the dissents in Vahle and Ward and the special concurring opinion in People v. Bone (1979), 70 Ill. App.3d 972, 389 N.E.2d 575, without providing any basis for this change of position except to say that the majority opinion of this court in Ward was incorrect.