Probation, community service for rural sign shooters

Two Sugar Grove men avoided prison after a shooting spree in June 2010 in which road signs and construction equipment were the targets.

Gabriel M. Carpenter, 25, of the 0-99 block of Heaton Court, recently pleaded guilty to felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and was sentenced to two years probation, 20 days of electronic home monitoring and 230 hours of community service.

Judge Edward C. Schreiber accepted the plea in which prosecutors dismissed several other felony weapons and property damage charges, according to court records.

Carpenter also was fined $3,410 for the spree, in which no one was injured.

Carpenter was arrested June 15, 2010, after Kane County Sheriff's deputies were called to Wheeler Road in Sugar Grove Township.

Authorities pulled over Carpenter and found a .40-caliber handgun in the car, along with spent shell casings under a seat along with an empty ammunition box.

Officials said Carpenter was shooting up road signs and construction equipment near an industrial park “for kicks.”

Carpenter's passenger, Travis J. Lake, 25, of the 0-99 block of Hanover Lane, also pleaded guilty to a weapons offense earlier this year.

According to court records, Lake pleaded guilty to felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon Jan. 27 in exchange for dismissal of four other felony weapons charges,

Lake was sentenced to 10 days in jail, two years probation and fined $6,724.

Carpenter is due back in court Nov. 29 to provide a progress report on his community service time.

Sherman loses appeal: The Illinois Supreme Court recently upheld a 2007 malpractice verdict against Sherman Hospital of Elgin.A jury awarded Jane and Michael Studt of Elgin $867,000 after they sued Sherman, claiming doctors misdiagnosed Jane's need to have her appendix removed after an emergency room visit in October 2001.She had her appendix removed a few days later, but had infections and complications from surgery, prompting a lawsuit in 2003.Sherman's lawyers appealed the verdict and asked for a new trial, but an appellate court panel disagreed.Sherman's lawyers took the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the jury received incorrect instructions that Jane's standard of care should have been #8220;reasonably well qualified#8221; professionals instead of #8220;reasonably careful#8221; professionals.The court disagreed that the difference was inconsistent and confusing to the jury.