People v. Followell
Citation | 518 N.E.2d 706,165 Ill.App.3d 28,116 Ill.Dec. 84 |
Decision Date | 31 December 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 4-87-0429,4-87-0429 |
Parties | , 116 Ill.Dec. 84 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip J. FOLLOWELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Karen Munoz, Asst. Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Donald M. Cadagin, State's Atty., Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director; for plaintiff-appellee; Frank M. Howard, Chicago, of counsel.
In informations filed in Sangamon County on March 5, 1980, defendant Phillip Followell was charged with two burglaries. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charges and petitioned for treatment under the Dangerous Drug Abuse Act. On March 13, 1981, the defendant was placed on probation for five years and was placed under the supervision of the Department of Mental Health for drug treatment. A petition to revoke probation for treatment as a drug addict and for resentencing was filed on April 20, 1981. The petition alleged that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation by voluntarily leaving the Lake Villa facility of the Gateway House on April 8, 1981, where he had been placed for drug abuse treatment. A hearing on the petition to revoke probation was not held until November 18, 1986. The following quote is a transcript of the entire probation revocation proceeding:
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court's order revoking his probation must be reversed because the trial court denied defendant basic due-process safeguards prior to accepting his admission to the allegations of the petition to revoke probation. We agree with defendant's contention.
As the Illinois Supreme Court stated in People v. Pier (1972), 51 Ill.2d 96, 99-100, 281 N.E.2d 289, 291:
Although the trial court need not give all of the admonitions contained in Supreme Court Rule 402 (107 Ill.2d R. 402) prior to accepting an admission to a petition to revoke probation (People v. Beard...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hersch v. State
... ... Zerbst standard in the case of People v. Brown, 248 N.W.2d 695, ... 72 Mich.App. 7 (1977). That court found that a knowing and intelligent waiver was required when: ... the right ... In People v. Followell, 518 N.E.2d 706, 707, 116 Ill.Dec. 84, 85, 165 Ill.App.3d 28 (1987), the Appellate Court of Illinois delineated what must be adduced from a ... ...
-
People v. Hall
... ... 760 N.E.2d 975 Our appellate court has struggled to reconcile Pier and Beard. See, e.g., People v. Butcher, 288 Ill.App.3d 120, 122, 223 Ill. Dec. 487, 679 N.E.2d 1260 (1997). In People v. Followell, 165 Ill.App.3d 28, 30-31, 116 Ill.Dec. 84, 518 N.E.2d 706 (1987), the appellate court quoted at length from Pier before concluding: ... "Although the trial court need not give all of the admonitions contained in Supreme Court Rule 402 [citation] prior to accepting an admission to a petition to ... ...
-
People v. Cox
... ... See People v. Followell (1987), 165 Ill.App.3d 28, 116 Ill.Dec. 84, 518 N.E.2d 706 ... The State initially responds that defendant has waived review of this issue by failing to object at trial or in a written post-trial motion. (See People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill.2d 176, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d ... ...
-
People v. Marion
... ... (See People v. Followell (1987), 165 Ill.App.3d 28, 116 Ill.Dec. 84, 518 N.E.2d 706.) We note that at the probation revocation proceeding, the defendant was not: (1) admonished that by admission she was waiving her right to present and confront witnesses (see People v. Hoyt (1984), 129 Ill.App.3d 331, 84 Ill.Dec. 608, ... ...