People v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 27 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12546,12546 |
| Citation | 26 Ill.App.3d 405,325 N.E.2d 392 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald GRIFFITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard J. Wilson, Deputy Defender, springfield, for defendant-appellant; Daniel D. Yuhas, Asst. Defender, Springfield, of counsel.
Basil G. Greanias, State's Atty., Macon County, Decatur, for plaintiff-appellee; James R. Coryell, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
The defendant, while on parole for a prior offense, was charged with four counts of forgery. After plea negotiations he entered a plea of guilty to all four counts. Before accepting the plea, the trial court admonished the defendant of the possible penalties as set forth in the Code of Corrections. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 1001--1--1 et seq.) The court in its admonition did not expressly cover the possibility of concurrent or consecutive sentences for the four charges then pending, nor was there an express admonition that the sentences to be received on those charges could be concurrent with or consecutive to the sentence previously imposed and for which the defendant was then on parole.
As part of the plea negotiations, however, the sentences to be imposed on the pending four counts for forgery were to be concurrent each with the other and furthermore such sentences were to be concurrent with the prior sentence of 2 to 7 years for which the defendant was on parole. Furthermore, the plea negotiations indicate that the State had obtained an agreement from a parole officer to withhold a parole violation warrant for a short period of time and to delay the issuance of the mittimus in this case for a like period of time. The terms and conditions of the plea negotiations are set forth in the record. They were recited to and acquiesced in by the defendant.
Upon this appeal, the defendant urges that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(2). (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, par. 402(a)(2).) In People v. Zatz, 13 Ill.App.3d 322, 300 N.E.,2d 16, we did hold that a failure to admonish as to the possibility of consecutive sentences constituted non-compliance with the cited section of Supreme Court Rule 402. Zatz is distinguishable from this case, however, in that it did not involve plea negotiations. Furthermore, in People v. Wills, 23 Ill.App.3d 25, 319 N.E.2d 269 (S.Ct. 47039, Cert. of Import, March Term), Zatz was expressly overruled and the court found no error in failure of the trial judge to admonish the defendant as to the possibility of consecutive sentences where a consecutive sentence was not imposed. Thus, under Wills, the technical deficiency in the admonition does not constitute grounds for reversal.
The defendant further urges that the plea negotiations resulted in a plea agreement that was incapable of fulfillment and that therefore the defendant's plea of guilty should be vacated. It is the position of the defendant that section 5--8--4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Woodruff
...juvenile petition had been filed and the defendant served with the summons naming the charges involved here. In People v. Griffith (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 405, 325 N.E.2d 392, this court held that a person is "committed," as the word appears in section 5-8-4(f) of the Unified Code of Correcti......
-
People ex rel. Gibson v. Cannon
...followed two prior Fourth District Appellate Court decisions (People v. Cherry, 29 Ill.App.3d 929, 332 N.E.2d 55; People v. Griffith, 26 Ill.App.3d 405, 325 N.E.2d 392) and held that the statute 'does not require a parolee's sentence for an offense committed while on parole, to run consecut......
-
People v. Davey
...determined--consistent with Fourth District precedent (People v. Cherry (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 929, 332 N.E.2d 55; People v. Griffith (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 405, 325 N.E.2d 392)--the language of section 5-8-4 of the Code as it then read (1972 Ill.Laws 2258), did not require a parolee's senten......
-
People v. Roberts, s. 13921 and 13922
...Department. It does not contemplate the situation where defendant is on parole at the time he commits the crime. (People v. Griffith (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 405, 325 N.E.2d 392.) Griffith is analogous to the present case in that there the court interpreted the term 'committed' to mean Confine......