People v. Burleson case brief summary
365 N.E.2d 1162 (1977)
CASE FACTS
Defendant raised the issue of whether his second conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on a separate date should have been vacated because the alleged conspiracy arose from the same course of conduct that formed the basis for his attempted armed robbery conviction.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence for the attempted armed robbery, but reversed the conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on that same date. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on a separate date.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
365 N.E.2d 1162 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed the judgment of the
Circuit Court of Logan County (Illinois), which entered convictions
for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted armed robbery on
the same date, a conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on
another date, and a sentence order consisting of a one- to five-year
sentence for the attempt conviction, to run concurrently with a one-
to three-year sentence for the conspiracy convictions.CASE FACTS
Defendant raised the issue of whether his second conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on a separate date should have been vacated because the alleged conspiracy arose from the same course of conduct that formed the basis for his attempted armed robbery conviction.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentence for the attempted armed robbery, but reversed the conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on that same date because the court found that it was a lesser included offense of attempt.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on the separate date because it found that the conspirators' actions originated in separate agreements or impulses to rob the bank on separate dates.
- The court held that defendant could have been charged with multiple conspiracies because he, with the necessary intent, entered into multiple although partially overlapping agreements to commit crimes and overt acts were committed in furtherance of those agreements.
- The court concluded that defendant's failure to complete the armed robbery scheme did not prevent his conviction for inchoate offenses arising from that conduct.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence for the attempted armed robbery, but reversed the conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on that same date. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on a separate date.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment