Appellate Court of Illinois· 7/6/2001
People v. Garry
Citations
- 752 N.E.2d 1244
- 323 Ill. App. 3d 292
- 257 Ill. Dec. 64
- 2001 Ill. App. LEXIS 550
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that Apprendi does not require a jury determination of facts beyond a reasonable doubt prior to imposing Illinois’ truth-in-sentencing provision limiting amount of good-conduct credit that can be earned to 4.5 days per month
- holding that Apprendi does not require a jury determination of facts beyond a reasonable doubt prior to imposing Illinois' truth-in-sentencing provision limiting amount of good-conduct credit that can be earned to 4.5 days per month
- finding that a review of the record reveals that the aggravating factor of bodily harm did not lead to a greater sentence
- \[T]he finding of great bodily harm simply had an impact upon the amount of time by which defendant-through his own 'good conduct'-could decrease his sentence\ and did not \trigger any penalty for [the] crimes.\ (Emphases omitted.)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Steigmann
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. MoralesNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2001-12-18· cited 53×
- People v. KinnersonAppellate Court of Illinois· 2020-05-14· cited 50×
- People v. WalkerAppellate Court of Illinois· 2002-06-26· cited 23×
- People v. CsaszarAppellate Court of Illinois· 2007-08-23· cited 21×
- People v. PittmanAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-12-13· cited 20×
- People v. BarnesAppellate Court of Illinois· 2018-02-02· cited 20×
- People v. FoxAppellate Court of Illinois· 2003-02-28· cited 11×
- People v. BellAppellate Court of Illinois· 2002-02-06· cited 11×
- People v. MilliganAppellate Court of Illinois· 2002-02-06· cited 10×
- People v. RobinsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 2008-05-22· cited 9×
- People v. ThompsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 2003-01-08· cited 7×
- People v. NewboldsAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-10-02· cited 7×
- People v. FenderAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-09-27· cited 6×
- People v. JamesAppellate Court of Illinois· 2005-11-10· cited 4×
- People v. GarryAppellate Court of Illinois· 2017-10-20· cited 2×
- People v. Pittman Modification of November 8, 2001, opinion on denial of rehearingAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-12-13
- People v. Walker Modification of May 15, 2002, opinion upon denial of rehearing.Appellate Court of Illinois· 2002-06-26
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court· 2000-06-26· cited 28,372×
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1998-03-24· cited 12,622×
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1999-03-24· cited 2,200×
- Hutto v. DavisSupreme Court· 1982-03-22· cited 815×
- People v. SaldivarIllinois Supreme Court· 1986-09-17· cited 381×
- People v. MaggetteIllinois Supreme Court· 2001-03-29· cited 332×
- People v. GilliamIllinois Supreme Court· 1996-05-23· cited 328×
- Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd.Supreme Court· 1983-03-28· cited 213×
- People v. TiptonIllinois Supreme Court· 1980-02-22· cited 66×
- People v. FiguresAppellate Court of Illinois· 1991-06-28· cited 59×
- People v. RobertsAppellate Court of Illinois· 2000-12-29· cited 57×
- People v. DillardAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-03-06· cited 51×
- People v. KluppelbergAppellate Court of Illinois· 1993-12-28· cited 44×
- People v. HunterAppellate Court of Illinois· 1981-11-10· cited 30×
- United States v. PowellE.D. Pennsylvania· 2000-08-10· cited 21×
- People v. EdwardsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1999-04-23· cited 16×
- People v. DuffieAppellate Court of Illinois· 1990-02-09· cited 13×
- People v. McGlassonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1991-09-19· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.