People v. Chesnut

• Decision Date: 14 April 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76--207,76--207
• Citation: People v. Chesnut, 361 N.E.2d 1185, 47 Ill.App.3d 324 (Ill. App. 1977)
• Parties: , 5 Ill.Dec. 657 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles J. CHESNUT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1185

361 N.E.2d 1185

47 Ill.App.3d 324, 5 Ill.Dec. 657

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Charles J. CHESNUT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76--207.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

April 14, 1977.

Robert Agostinelli, DeputyState App. Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant; Robert Hansen with James E. Hinterlong, Director, Ill. State's Attys.Assn., Ottawa, of counsel.

Carl E. Hawkinson, State's Atty., Galesburg, for plaintiff-appellee.

ALLOY, Justice.

DefendantCharles J. Chesnut appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Knox County, in which defendant was convicted of the crime of escape, and appeals also from the subsequent denial of defendant's motion to vacate and withdraw his guilty plea in the case.Defendant was sentenced to serve a term of not less than three nor more than nine years on the conviction.

On appeal in this court, defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in appointing counsel(who had represented defendant Chesnut in his guilty plea) when such attorney represented defendant also on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and (2) that defense counsel failed to comply strictly with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 604(d) of the Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 604(d).

Defendant Chesnut was charged in an information with the offense of escape, in violation of par. 31--6(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961(Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 31--6(a)).From the record it is noted that on November 11, 1975, defendant, while incarcerated on a charge of rape, sawed through several bars at the Knox County Jail and escaped from the institution, together with three other individuals.All of the escapees were later captured and returned to the Knox County Jail.

On January 5, 1976, the Public Defender of Knox County was appointed to represent the defendant.On that same day, defendant entered into a negotiated plea of guilty to the offense of escape.Under the terms of the negotiation, defendant was to receive a sentence on the escape charge of not less than three nor more than nine years in the penitentiary.A pending charge of rape against the defendant was to be nolle prossed.During the plea proceedings, the trial court admonished defendant of his rights and of the consequences of a guilty plea.Defendant stated that his guilty plea was voluntarily made, and that he was fully satisfied with the representation which was given to him by the public defender in the proceedings.The trial court accepted defendant's plea, and found that the plea was made voluntarily, and thereafter sentenced him to a term of three to nine years imprisonment.

On January 27, 1976, defendant wrote to the trial court, indicating his desire to file a motion to vacate his plea and have counsel appointed for him.Defendant's letter recited several grounds in support of this action, but did not refer in any manner to any dissatisfaction with his attorney.The trial court thereafter appointed the public defender to represent the defendant in the post-trial proceedings, and on February 19, 1976 a motion to withdraw defendant's guilty plea and set asidedefendant's conviction was filed in the trial court.A hearing on defendant's motion was held on March 11, 1976.At the hearing defense counsel stated that he had been in touch with defendant to ascertain the grounds for the motion.The defense counsel also spoke with the defendant just prior to the hearing, and as a result, moved to amend the motion to set forth additional grounds.As presented to the trial court, the motion to withdraw defendant's plea was based on the grounds that (1) prior to the time defendant was allowed to plead guilty, he was confined in solitary confinement at the Knox County Jail, allegedly asserting that this made his guilty plea a product of duress; (2) during defendant's confinement he was denied access to law books; (3) all of this constituted cruel and unusual punishment; (4)defendant's prior confinement and later sentence imposed as a result of defendant's guilty plea constituted double jeopardy, and (5)defendant's confinement to the Knox County Jail, a condemned building, offered a defense to the charge of escape.

During the hearing on defendant's motion, defendant declined to make a statement to the court.After both the defense counsel and the prosecutor had presented their arguments to the trial court, defense counsel made the following statement:

'The defendant has noted to me and I think this should go on the record for the purpose of preservation that I did not inform him prior to his guilty plea that any of the matters alleged in the petition or added to it by amendment today constituted a deprivation of his constitutional rights.I wish to have placed in the record * * * to make sure that his rights at the present time are fully protected.'

The trial court then determined that the grounds alleged in the motion were insufficient to allow withdrawal of defendant's guilty plea.

The first contention made by defendant on appeal in this Court is that the trial court erred in appointing the same counsel to represent defendant on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, when such counsel had also represented defendant on the entry of the guilty plea.In making this argument, defendant now emphasizes that his motion to withdraw was based partially on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.Supreme Court Rule 604(d),Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 604(d), provides in part:

'No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.* * * The trial judge shall then determine whether defendant is represented by counsel and if the defendant is indigent and desires counsel, the trial court shall...