Krolage v. People

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILKIN
• Citation: Krolage v. People, 224 Ill. 456, 79 N.E. 570 (Ill. 1906)
• Decision Date: 22 December 1906
• Parties: KROLAGE v. PEOPLE.

224 Ill. 456

79 N.E. 570

KROLAGE

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1906.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; George Kersten, Judge.

George Krolage, after pleading guilty to a criminal charge, requested leave to withdraw the plea, and moved in arrest of judgment on the court's refusal to grant leave which motion was denied, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Cantwell & Erbstein and Charles P. R. Macaulay, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John J. Healy, State's Atty. (James J. Barbour, of counsel), for the People.

WILKIN, J.

Prior to the December term, 1905, of the criminal court of Cook county plaintiff in error was arraigned on an indictment charging him with embezzlement, and entered a plea of not guilty. At said December term he appeared again by his then attorney, Edward H. Wright, Esq., and withdrew that plea, and entered a plea of guilty. Certain evidence was then introduced and the further hearing of the cause continued. On the 8th day of December, having obtained other counsel, to wit. Charles E. Erbstein, Esq., of the Cook county bar, defendant appeared and by his said counsel suggested to the court that he had pleaded guilty in the belief that he would not be sentenced to the penitentiary, and desired to withdraw that plea, and enter a plea of not guilty, and he prayed the court to withhold sentence, and permit him to present affidavits setting forth the fact by which he had been induced to enter his plea of guilty, but the court ordered that the facts upon which the motion was based should be made known, and cause shown instanter. He failed to comply with that order, and his counsel stated that he had just been called into the case, and wished time to learn the facts and incorporate them in affidavits, but the court declined to grant any delay whatever, and sentenced the defendant to the penitentiary on his said plea of guilty, to which action of the court the defendant duly excepted. He then moved the court in arrest of judgment, which motion was overruled and exception taken. Affidavits in support of the contention of the defendant that he had entered his plea of guilty under a misapprehension were afterwards filed, and a motion entered for a new trial. One of the grounds for this motion was that, before the plea of guilty was entered, the court did not fully explain to the defendant the consequences of his entering said plea. On this point the records show that, upon the statement of the defendant that he desired to withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead guilty, the only explanation which the court made as to the effect of the plea of guilty was: ‘And thereupon the court inquired of the defendant whether he understood that if he pleaded guilty the court would sentence him to the penitentiary, and the defendant thereupon informed the court that he did so understand, and thereupon the court ordered that the plea of guilty be entered, without any further explanation of the consequences of the plea.’

Paragraph 424 of the Criminal Code of this state (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 744, c. 38, § 4), provides: ‘In cases where the party pleads ‘guilty’ such plea shall not be entered until the court shall have fully explained to the accused the consequences of entering such plea; after which, if the party persists in pleading ‘guilty,’ such plea shall be received and recorded, and the court shall proceed to render judgment and execution thereon, as if he had been found guilty by a jury. In all cases where the court possesses any discretion as to the extent of the punishment, it shall be the duty of the court to examine witnesses as to the aggravation and mitigation of the offense.'

It is insisted on behalf of the defendant that the explanation made by the court was not a compliance with the above requirement of the statute, and, in our view of the case, that contention must be sustained. The foregoing section of the statute was evidently passed for the purpose of securing to a person charged with crime the right to a trial by jury unless he should, after an opportunity to fully and fairly understand the consequences of a plea of guilty, waive that right. In a certain sense, pleas of guilty in criminal procedure have been discouraged by the courts. In some states pleas of guilty to the charge of murder are not received. In others, on a plea of guilty the case must stand continued. People v. Noll, 20 Cal. 164. In still others, statutes provide that the court may permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn at any time before judgment, and such statutes have been construed to give the defendant an absolute right to withdraw the plea. State v. Hortman, 122 Iowa, 104, 97 N. W. 981. Under our st...