People v. Bonheim

• Decision Date: 06 April 1923
• Docket Number: No. 15099.,15099.
• Citation: People v. Bonheim, 307 Ill. 316, 138 N.E. 627 (Ill. 1923)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BONHEIM.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

307 Ill. 316

138 N.E. 627

PEOPLE

v.BONHEIM.

No. 15099.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1923.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1923.

Error to Circuit Court, Christian County; F. R. Dove, Judge.

Frank Bonheim, Jr., pleaded guilty to larceny, and his motion for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and render a plea of not guilty was denied, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Hogan & Reese, of Taylorville, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Edward E. Dowell, State's Atty., of Pana, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield, for the People.

THOMPSON, C. J.

Plaintiff in error, Frank Bonheim, Jr., entered his plea of guilty in the circuit court of Christian county to an indictment charging him with the larceny of property of the value of $135, belonging to the Taylorville Elks Lodge. The court fully explained to him the consequences of entering such a plea, but he persisted in his plea of guilty. Thereupon the court received and recorded the plea and entered a judgment finding him guilty as charged, after which a petition for release on probation was filed and referred to the probation officer for investigation and report. The probation officer reported unfavorably, and, upon consideration of the petition, the court denied it. Thereupon the court, upon consideration of evidence heard, found plaintiff in error to be 19 years of age, and found him to be a fit and proper person to be committed to the state reformatory at Pontiac, and sentenced him accordingly. Thereafter a motion was made to set aside the judgment and sentence and for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty. The grounds of said motion were that plaintiff in error was a minor; that he had not advised with counsel before entering his plea of guilty and did not understand the full effect and consequence of entering such a plea; that he entered the plea under the belief that he was to be given his liberty on probation; that he entered the plea pursuant to an agreement with the state's attorney that sentence would be deferred until the next term of court and that the state's attorney would recommend his release on probation at the succeding term if he had conducted himself properly in the meantime. Evidence was heard in support of and in opposition to this motion, and, upon consideration of the evidence, the court denied the motion. To review that order this writ of error is prosecuted.

On the hearing plaintiff in error testified that he is 19 years of age; that he was living with, and was employed by his father in Taylorville; that he was sorry he had taken the property, and that he did not know what caused him to do such a terrible act; that he went to the state's attorney's office with his father and told the state's attorney that he was sorry for what he had done and asked him what he would advise him to do; that the state's attorney told him that he could not advise him because he was against him; that the state's attorney told him there were two things he could do-that he could have a trial by a jury, or that he could enter his plea of guilty to the indictment and could thereafter make application to the court for release on probation; that the state's attorney told him that he could not recommend his release on probation but that he would recommend that sentence be deferred until the next term of court, and if his conduct was good he would then recommend that the sentence be again deferred until the next term of court, and if his conduct continued to be good he would eventually recommend his release on probation; that the state's attorney told his father substantially the same thing he had told him; that he and his father agreed that it was better to enter a plea of guilty and so advised the state's attorney; that the state's attorney went with them into the courtroom; that his case was called and he entered his plea of guilty; that the state's attorney advised the court that plaintiff in error wanted to file his petition for release on probation, and that the court thereupon continued the hearing and referred the petition to the probation officer.

Frank Bonheim, Sr., testified that he is the father of plaintiff in error; that he talked with the exalted ruler of the Elks and persuaded him to agree to recommend that the prosecution be dismissed if all damages and costs were paid; that they went to the state's attorney and talked the matter over with him; that the state's attorney advised them that it was unlawful to make such an agreement, and that he would not recognize it; that he discussed with the state's attorney what could be done; that the state's attorney advised him that his son could have a trial by a jury or that he could enter his plea of guilty to the charge, and after his son had been adjudged to be guilty of the crime he could apply to the court for...