Join date: May 18, 2022


Igo Primo 2 0 800x480 854x480 960x54 >>> DOWNLOAD

Igo Primo 2 0 800x480 854x480 960x54 >>> DOWNLOAD

システムグリップヌツ屏風・ページャ のテヲフャクテヲンターィツェ のケッテヲ・ーャ、ナエッテ・カョエアーー、ターィツェ・.php?ノッスノッシッ テヲフャクテヲンターィツェ のケッテヲ・ーャ、ナエッテ・カョエアーー、ターィツェ・.php?ノッスノッシッ テヲフャクテヲンターィツェ のケッテヲ・ーャ、ナエッテ・カョエアーー、ターィツェ・.php?ノッスノッシッ テヲフャクテヲンターィツェ のケッテヲ

to the exclusion of other mitigating factors. On the issue of provocation, the trial court stated that it found sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict. During the sentencing hearing, defendant's attorney asked the trial court to reconsider its decision to allow the introduction of defendant's prior felony conviction. Defense counsel also expressed concern about the judge's statement in the original sentencing opinion that defendant's conduct toward the victim had been "wanton and cruel." As a part of this request, defense counsel asked that the prior conviction be removed from the presentence report and all references to the conviction be stricken from the sentencing order. The trial court in its first sentencing opinion did not delete the prior conviction from the presentence report. However, the court did strike references to the conviction from the sentencing order. The court stated that it had not considered the prior conviction at the original sentencing and did not find it relevant in assessing the current sentence. The trial court in its supplemental opinion ordered that the presentence report be amended to reflect the prior conviction for armed robbery. The court justified its action on the basis of defendant's pending appeal. Defendant asserts that his pending appeal should not be grounds for refusing to remove the prior conviction from the presentence report. At the time defendant was originally sentenced, the presentence report was not a matter of public record. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. XXXX-XX-X.) As a result, it was appropriate for the trial court to strike any reference to the prior conviction from the original sentencing order. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor questioned the relevance of the prior conviction. During this discussion, defense counsel was not invited to respond. Consequently, this issue has not been properly preserved for appeal. However, we feel the prosecutor was not prejudiced by the reference to the prior conviction. The judge in his first sentencing opinion stated that the conduct which formed the basis of the prior conviction was of the same type as that which gave rise to the instant conviction. Moreover, the sentence imposed on the prior conviction (i.e., two years probation, not imprisonment) was lighter than that imposed in the present case. We also note that the record does not support defendant's assertion that he was prejudiced by the reference to the prior conviction. He argues that because he was convicted of armed robbery, his sentence for battery was made more severe. However, the severity of his sentence does not appear to have been *304 due to the prior conviction. Rather, the judge's


Igo Primo 2 0 800x480 854x480 960x54

More actions