Skip to main content

People v. White

Citations

  • 831 N.E.2d 657
  • 357 Ill. App. 3d 1070
  • 294 Ill. Dec. 707
  • 2005 Ill. App. LEXIS 556

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s post- conviction motion to correct the mittimus, and reversing the trial court’s denial of the motion
  • taking judicial notice of certain Department of Corrections records, as they are public documents
  • entertaining an appeal of a denial of a motion for corrected mittimus
  • “The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to make the present record correspond with what the court actually decided in the past.”
  • a trial court retains jurisdiction to correct nonsubstantial matters, such as amendment of the mittimus to reflect additional sentencing credit, after it has otherwise relinquished jurisdiction
  • “The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to make the present record correspond with what the court actually decided in the past. Such orders may be used to correct clerical errors ***.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lytton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.