People v. Carter
| Citation | 107 Ill.App.2d 474,246 N.E.2d 320 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 68--129 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wendell CARTER (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John R. Snively, Rockford, for appellant.
Philip G. Reinhard, State's Atty., John C. Tower, Asst. State's Atty., Rockford, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from judgment of conviction of Aggravated Kidnapping, entered upon his plea of guilty, and sentence of 10 to 25 years in the penitentiary.
Together with three other persons, defendant had been indicted for the offenses of rape and aggravated kidnapping in two counts. On arraignment, pleas of not guilty were entered to both counts. Thereafter, the plea of not guilty was withdrawn as to the second count of the indictment charging aggravated kidnapping, and a plea of guilty was entered in this count. (The first count charging rape was subsequently nolle prossed.)
Defendant contends that the trial court accepted the plea of guilty without adequately explaining to the defendant the nature of the charge and the consequences thereof; that the court improperly considered arrests rather than convictions in the hearing on probation and in aggravation and mitigation; that in giving identical sentences to all defendants the court did not exercise its discretion; finally, that the punishment was excessive.
Defendant contends that the admonishment by the court failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, Chap. 38, Sec. 113--4(c) and Supreme Court Rule 401(b) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, Chap. 110A Sec. 401). The pertinent part of the statute requires the court, before accepting the plea of guilty, to 'have fully explained to the defendant the consequences of such plea and the maximum penalty provided by law * * *'. The implementing Rule provides, in pertinent part, that the court shall not permit a plea of guilty to a felony 'unless the court finds from proceedings had in open court at the time * * * plea of guilty entered * * * that the accused understands * * * the nature of the charge against him, and the consequences thereof * * *'.
Prior to the admonishment, the record discloses that the defendants' attorney had advised the court that the defendants wished to plead to the second count of the indictment. To which the court said, 'aggravated kindnapping?', and counsel answered, 'Yes'.
The court then advised the defendant of the right to trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to trial before the judge alone. The court continued:
'And on your plea of guilty the Court might sentence you to the penitentiary for a period of years not less than one or a maximum number of years to be fixed by the Court, or any combination of years not less than the minimum set by the Court and the maximum set by the Court, within the one to the indeterminate number of years fixed by the Court'.
Before accepting the plea from the defendant, the court inquired, 'Is there anything about it you don't understand?' To which the defendant answered, 'No, sir'.
When the petition for probation was filed a colloquy occurred in which the court raised the question of whether aggravated kidnapping was an offense upon which probation could be granted, and counsel advised that it was but that rape was not.
We find no reversible error in the court's admonishment of the defendant.
We note that the defendant does not claim he did not understand the nature of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, but takes the position that it is error for the court not to have more fully explained the offense charged.
However, the defendant was advised of the 'nature of the charge' by the court's statement that the plea was to 'aggravated kidnapping'. The Rule does not require that the court state all of the acts which constitute the offense, but that it gives its 'essence, general character, kind or sort'. People v. Harden, 78 Ill.App.2d 431, 444, 222 N.E.2d 693, 700 (1966) (). See also, The People v. Doyle, 20 Ill.2d 163, 166--167, 169 N.E.2d 250 (1960).
On this record we distinguish The People v. Washington, 5 Ill.2d 58, 61, 124 N.E.2d 890 (1955), and People v. Culbert, 69 Ill.App.2d 162, 166, 215 N.E.2d 470 (1966), both of which have been cited by the defendant. In Washington, the nature of the crime was not mentioned and the trial court made reference only to certain counts of the indictment. In Culbert, there was no statement of the offense on acceptance of the plea of guilty.
The defendant was also adequately advised of the consequences of his plea. It is conceded that the trial court was in error in stating that the minimum term was one year rather than two years. However, the trial court correctly advised the defendant as to the maximum penalty provided by law in accordance with Sec. 113--4 of Chap. 38 (supra) and having been given a minimum sentence of ten years, the defendant was not prejudiced by the misstatement of the minimum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robinson
...... This is said to be sufficient to advise the defendant of the 'essence, general character, kind or sort' of offense which he is accused of having committed. People v. Carter (1969, 2d Dist.), 107 Ill.App.2d 474, 246 N.E.2d 320; 4 cert. denied 397 U.S. 1008, 90 S.Ct. 1236, 25 L.Ed.2d 421; People v. Palmer . Page 320. (1971, 1st Dist.), 1 Ill.App.3d 492, 274 N.E.2d 910; People v. Wright (1971, 1st Dist.), 2 Ill.App.3d 304, 275 N.E.2d 735; 5 People v. Tennyson (1972, 1st ......
-
People v. Butchek
...... This record taken in its entirety clearly establishes that defendant understood that nature of the charge, and this satisfies the requirement of the Rule. People v. McCrady, 131 Ill.App.2d 836, 267 N.E.2d 515; People v. Carter, 107 Ill.App.2d 474, 246 N.E.2d 320; People v. Green, 12 Ill.App.3d 418, 299 N.E.2d 535. Defendant's contentions on this point are simply contrary to the record. . Defendant next contends that the trial judge did not comply with the [22 Ill.App.3d 396] provisions of Supreme Court ......
-
People v. Billops
...... (People v. Tennyson, 9 Ill.App.3d 329, 292 N.E.2d 233; People v. Wintersmith, 9 Ill.App.3d 327, 292 N.E.2d 220; People v. Carter, 107 Ill.App.2d 474, 246 N.E.2d 320.) Also, it has been held that even where an admonition has not referred to the name of the charge, it nonetheless has been held sufficient on the theory that the nature of the offense was contained in the indictment previously furnished defendant and also was ......
-
People v. Burdick
...... See People v. Carter, 107 Ill.App.2d 474, 477, 246 N.E.2d 320 (1969); People v. Davis, 103 Ill.App.2d 239, 241--242, 242 N.E.2d 609 (1968); People v. Harden, 78 Ill.App.2d 431, 444--445, 222 N.E.2d 693 (1966). In addition, the defendant was informed of the nature of the offense from a copy of the information proposed ......