## Facts

- Charles Edward Burleson (defendant) and Bruce Brown agreed on September 11, 1975, to rob a bank in Illinois.
- After the September 11 agreement, they conducted surveillance of the bank and made preparations to carry out the robbery.
- They selected September 13, 1975, as the date to commit the robbery and went to the bank with weapons and other items for the planned offense.
- On September 13, they aborted the plan after concluding there were too many people around the bank.
- After abandoning the September 13 plan, Burleson and Brown agreed to try the robbery again on September 16, 1975.
- On September 16, they attempted to enter the bank, failed, and fled from the scene; Burleson was later apprehended by police.
- The State charged Burleson with two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery (one tied to the earlier agreement and one tied to the later agreement) and one count of attempted armed robbery based on the September 16 conduct.
- A jury convicted Burleson on both conspiracy counts and on attempted armed robbery, and the trial court entered judgment on all three verdicts.

## Issues

1. May the State obtain two conspiracy convictions for the same target offense when the evidence supports more than one agreement to commit that offense on different dates?
2. May a defendant stand convicted of both conspiracy and attempt when the conspiracy count is based on the same objective and course of conduct as the attempt?

## Decision

- The court held that two conspiracy convictions may stand when the evidence shows two distinct agreements to commit the same crime, even if the target of both agreements is the same bank.
- The court held that a defendant may not be convicted of both conspiracy and attempt when, as charged and proved, the conspiracy is treated as an included offense of the attempt arising from the same planned offense and conduct.
- The court vacated the conspiracy conviction tied to the same planned robbery and conduct that produced the attempted armed robbery conviction.
- The court affirmed the remaining conspiracy conviction and the attempted armed robbery conviction.
- The court remanded for correction of the judgments and sentencing records consistent with leaving only the affirmed conspiracy conviction and the attempt conviction.

## Legal Principles

- The “unit” of conspiracy is the agreement; separate agreements to commit the same substantive offense can constitute separate conspiracies.
- Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement; whether there is one conspiracy or multiple conspiracies depends on whether the evidence supports more than one agreement.
- Under Illinois law applied in this case, a defendant may not be convicted of both conspiracy and attempt when the conspiracy count is based on the same objective and conduct as the attempt count.
- When multiple convictions are entered for offenses that cannot both stand on the same facts, the proper remedy is to vacate the conviction for the included offense and conform the judgment and sentencing paperwork to the lawful convictions.

## Conclusion

*People v. Burleson* upheld multiple conspiracy convictions in principle when the proof shows distinct agreements, but set aside the conspiracy conviction that overlapped with the attempted armed robbery because Illinois does not permit convictions for both conspiracy and attempt based on the same planned offense and conduct; the court affirmed the remaining conspiracy and the attempt and sent the case back to correct the judgment and sentencing records.


People v. Burleson, 365 N.E.2d 1162 (1977)