People v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 29 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--202,71--202 |
| Citation | 295 N.E.2d 354,10 Ill.App.3d 923 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Kenneth L. Jones, Dist. Defender, Illinois Defender Project, Mount Vernon, for defendant-appellant; Nicholas J. Schiralli, Senior Law Student, Indiana University, of counsel.
Joe Harrison, State's Atty., Wayne County, Fairfield, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appellant was charged by complaint in Wayne County with forgery in violation of chapter 38, section 17--3(a)(2), Illinois Revised Statutes. Appellant appeared with appointed counsel and entered a plea of guilty to the charge after waiving preliminary examination and indictment. The guilty plea was accepted and appellant was placed on probation for five years, the first year of which to be spent at the Illinois State Penal Farm at Vandalia, and ordered to make restitution for the outstanding forged checks during his probation period. The plea was the result of negotiations between the appellant and his counsel and the State's Attorney, and the sentence imposed was suggested by counsel as part of the agreement. There is no question here about the propriety of the negotiations or the voluntariness of the plea.
Appellant's first contention is that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing in aggravation and mitigation or securing appellant's waiver of such a hearing as required by Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, sec. 1--7(g). Appellant contends that the hearing is mandatory and must be held unless waived by the defendant and not requested by the State, citing (People v. Evrard, 55 Ill.App.2d 270, 204 N.E.2d 777), and (People v. Smice, 79 Ill.App.2d 348, 223 N.E.2d 548). Those cases did not involve a negotiated plea.
The Supreme Court of Illinois has held that a hearing in aggravation and mitigation is a non-jurisdictional matter which is waived by a voluntary guilty plea. (People v. Mendoza, 48 Ill.2d 371, 270 N.E.2d 30, citing People v. Nelson, 41 Ill.2d 364, 243 N.E.2d 225.) This was recently underscored on the appellate level. (People v. Wisdom, 6 Ill.App.3d 840, 286 N.E.2d 749), and most recently by this court in People v. Hendrickson, Ill.App., 296 N.E.2d 751 filed March 23, 1973. None of these opinions, however, were explicit in the reasons for the waiver by the plea or whether there were exceptions to the rule in light of the previously held mandatory nature of the hearing.
In People v. Watland, 4 Ill.App.3d 845, 281 N.E.2d 435, the court held that a hearing in aggravation and mitigation was not necessary where defendant pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement which included suggestions subsequently followed concerning the sentence to be imposed. The court stated that under Supreme Court Rule 402(d) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, Chap. 110A, Sec. 402(d), and the holding in People v. Talbot, 2 Ill.App.3d 922, 274 N.E.2d 123, the policy of the courts is to encourage proper plea negotiation. In that case the issue before the trial judge was whether to accept the proposed agreement. It was held that where the court accepts the settlement as proposed and previously agreed to by the defendant (as in the instant case), the defendant 'has received the full benefit of the plea negotiation procedure and under such circumstances a waiver of hearing in aggravation and mitigation is not required'. (People v. Watland, 4 Ill.App.3d 845, 848, 281 N.E.2d 435, 437). Rule 402(d) recognizes that a reduction in sentence from the statutory maximum is a significant inducement for defendant's guilty plea. This means that defendant may want to negotiate a proposed sentence before pleading guilty. When an agreement is submitted for judicial approval, it may be accepted by the judge. If so, there is no further room for the exercise of the judge's sentencing discretion. Both sides have concurred in the arrangement. To alter its terms would require further consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. White
-
People v. Dickinson
... ... Chupich, 53 Ill.2d 572, 295 N.E.2d 1.) Here, the sentence should comply with the new sentencing provisions; thus, the cause is remanded to the circuit court to modify the order of probation to eliminate the condition of imprisonment. See People v. Haynes, 10 Ill.App.3d 923, 295 N.E.2d 354 ... A related issue pertains to the length of the probation period allowable[13 Ill.App.3d 471] under the new Code. At the time defendant entered his plea, probation could be granted for a period of not less than six months and not to exceed 5 ... ...