People v. Carlisle

• Decision Date: 27 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 12256,12256
• Citation: 324 N.E.2d 234,25 Ill.App.3d 1022
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert H. CARLISLE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 234

324 N.E.2d 234

25 Ill.App.3d 1022

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert H. CARLISLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12256.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Feb. 27, 1975.

John F. McNichols, Deputy Defender, John L. Swartz, Asst. Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

John G. Satter, Jr., State's Atty., Livingston County, Pontiac, for plaintiff-appellee; Michael Prall, Atty. in Charge, Circuit Attorney Project, Bloomington, of counsel.

CRAVEN, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of misconduct by an inmate upon his plea of guilty. The sentence of not less than 1 nor more than 3 years in the Illinois State Penitentiary consecutive to the sentence he was then serving was imposed. Upon this direct appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty without first establishing a factual basis for the plea as required by Supreme Court Rule 402(c) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, 402(c)), and without ascertaining that the plea was voluntary as required by Supreme Court Rule 402(b) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, 402(b)). We affirm.

Initially, the defendant was indicted for attempted escape and misconduct by an inmate as those offenses are defined in section 17 of the Illinois State Penitentiary Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 108, 121). The latter offense being Count II of the indictment charged that the defendant:

'* * * committed the offense of MISCONDUCT BY INMATE in that he, being a prisoner in the Pontiac Branch of the Illinois State Penitentiary, Pontiac, Illinois, intentionally and knowingly held or participated in the holding of Alfred E. Kreiter as a hostage by force, threat or violence, said defendant, Robert Carlisle, being at said time, duly and lawfully imprisoned in the Pontiac Branch of the Illinois State Penitentiary on a commitment from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in which Court he was duly convicted of the offense of armed robbery and was sentenced by said Court to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a period of not less than three (3) years nor more than seven (7) years, said defendant, not having completed said sentence and said judgment of said Court being, at said time, in full force and effect, in violation of section 121 of chapter 108 of the Illinois Revised Statutes, and contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same People of the State of Illinois.'

The record in this case indicates that the defendant was an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Pontiac serving a term of 3 to 7 years for the offense of armed robbery. Upon the happening of the events leading to the present charge, certain institutional or administrative disciplinary actions were taken against the defendant and he sought initially to have the charge dismissed upon a theory of double jeopardy. As this case proceeded in the circuit court, from the date of the indictment in September 1972 to the ultimate entry of the plea of guilty in April 1973, there is a clear indication that the trial court was entirely familiar with the case, with the defendant's allegations as to institutional problems, and alleged harassment, alleged inaccessibility to his counsel, and inadequate opportunity to communicate with counsel. Ultimately, pursuant to agreement, Count I was dismissed and a plea of guilty was entered on Count II.

With reference to the allegation that the court did not ascertain that the plea was voluntary, the recent opinions of the Illinois Supreme Court of People v. Krantz, 58 Ill.2d 187, 317 N.E.2d 559, together with People v. Ellis, 59 Ill.2d 255, 320 N.E.2d 15, make it clear that substantial, not literal, compliance with Rule 402(b) is all that is required. In the last cited case, the court indicated that failure to explicitly comply with the requirements of the Rule does not require reversal. Rather, upon review, the entire record is to be examined to determine whether or not the terms of a plea agreement were voluntary, and, if so, any error with reference to failure to strictly comply with 402(b) is regarded as harmless. The court inquired of the defendant with reference to the voluntariness of the plea and whether there was any force or threat of force coercing the defendant to plead guilty to which the defendant responded as follows:

'Well, this is what I would like to say to the Court at this time. I have not been threatened into pleading guilty for these instant changes before the Court or promised any bargains or deals or anything of the sort, but I am pleading guilty to these charges due to the fact I have no further contest...