Skip to main content

People v. Matthew M.

Citations

  • 780 N.E.2d 723
  • 335 Ill. App. 3d 276
  • 269 Ill. Dec. 251
  • 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 976

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a juvenile’s challenge to a stayed adult sentence was ripe for consideration even though he would never be required to serve the adult sentence if he did not violate the conditions of his juvenile sentence
  • stating the objectives in fashioning a sentence should be to “(a) prescribe sanctions proportionate to the seriousness of the offenses and permit the recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders; (b
  • an EJJ prosecution is like a transfer to adult court under section 5-805(2
  • respondent raised Apprendi challenges directed at EJJ designation, after respondent’s case had been designated as an EJJ prosecution and respondent had been tried and convicted
  • to prove a defendant guilty on an accountability basis, the State is required to show that the defendant, with the requisite intent, aided or abetted his companions prior to or during the commission of the crime
  • an EJJ prosecution is like a transfer to adult court under section 5-805(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hutchinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named People v. Matthew M.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

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.