People v. Horne
| Decision Date | 29 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--48,73--48 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin HORNE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert E. Farrell, Deputy Defender, Mount Vernon, Margaret Maxwell, Asst. Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., Belleville, for plaintiff-appellee; Thomas M. Daley, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
The defendant was indicted for the alleged offenses of rape and aggravated kidnapping. After originally entering a plea of not guilty, the defendant pled guilty to the charge of rape and was sentenced on July 20, 1972, pursuant to a plea agreement, to serve four to ten years in the penitentiary. The count of aggravated kidnapping was dismissed.
The defendant raised only one issue on appeal: did the trial court accept the defendant's guilty plea without determining if the defendant understood the nature of the charge?
The record shows that the defendant was given a copy of the indictment at the arraignment and the judge referred to the alleged offense by name at the guilty plea proceeding. The court did not read the indictment or the relevant section of the Criminal Code. It did not define the offense of rape for the defendant or ask him if he understood the charge. Clearly this does not meet the requirement of Rule 402(a)(1), Ill.Rev.St.1973, ch. 110A, § 402(a)(1).
In its oral argument the State advanced the notion that rape is so well understood that it requires less explanation and intimated that the trial judge in this case was justified in believing that the defendant did in fact understand the nature of the charge. This kind of argument could lead to the emasculation of Rule 402. It would depart from a clear requirement spelled out in that rule to a subjective assessment on the part of the judge that the defendant being an 'experienced criminal' need have no explanation of the charges against him. What the judge thinks about the knowledge of the criminal should have no bearing on his astuteness in seeing that Section 402 is complied with and that on appeal no doubts can be raised about the defendant being informed. In this case statements made by the defendant raised some doubt about whether the charge should have been rape or attempted rape. In view of this doubt and in view of the many elements included in the definition of rape (male person, fourteen years or over, sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, force and against her will), an explanation to the defendant seems particularly important. Furthermore, the statute elaborates on 'force and against her will' by stating that this includes situations where the female is unconscious or where she is so mentally deranged or so deficient that she cannot give effective consent. In addition the law also states the one thing which the defendant might have understood without explanation, or again he might not have--namely, that there is sexual intercourse only if there is some penetration of the female organ. This case will have to be reversed for failure to inform the defendant as required by Rule 402(a)(1).
In many instances, the point is advanced by the State, that looking at the 'record as a whole', the factual basis may be relied upon to show that there was an adequate explanation of the nature of the charge. Making certain that the defendant understands the nature of the charge requires explanation and an Admonition to the defendant with the judge doing the explaining and admonishing. Establishing the factual basis on the other hand requires that information come from the defendant, the prosecuting attorney, competent witnesses or a pre-sentence report To the judge so he can be informed as to whether or not, in his opinion, the acts of the defendant meet the definition of the crime. A perfunctory discharge of any of these responsibilities is not sufficient. The record should show that they have been expressly dealt with. A reviewing court should not have to examine the whole record and look for a word or sentence here or there to see if the various requirements of Rule 402 have been met. This question is discussed in clear and forceful language in People v. Hudson, 7 Ill.App.3d 800, 288 N.E.2d 533, where among other things the court said:
'Many briefs filed before this court confuse 'factual basis' with the requirement of Rule 402(a)(1) that the trial court determine that the defendant Understands 'the nature of the charge."
This case presents a question not raised in the briefs of the defendant or the State though it was alluded to in the oral arguments: if the defendant successfully appeals a conviction based on a negotiated guilty plea, on other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robinson
...7 Ill.App.3d 809, 288 N.E.2d 550; People v. Bauswell (1973, 4th Dist.), 12 Ill.App.3d 35, 297 N.E.2d 389; People v. Horne (1974, 5th Dist.), 21 Ill.App.3d 10, 314 N.E.2d 633 From this survey of Illinois decisions, 6 we conclude that there is no Supreme Court decision squarely in point on th......
-
Carlisle v. State
...the entire original indictment has been reinstated. The Appellate Court of Illinois reached a similar conclusion in People v. Horne, 21 Ill.App.3d 10, 314 N.E.2d 633 (1974). That case held that when a defendant successfully appealed the validity of a guilty plea, the other charges that had ......
-
State v. White
...and this court acknowledges, that this practice has been followed by other jurisdictions, as shown by the cases of People v. Horne, 314 N.E.2d 633, 21 Ill.App.3d 10 (1974) (additional charge dismissed pursuant to plea bargain, when setting aside conviction, court specifically stated that th......
-
People v. Porter
... ... (People v. Hudson (1972), 7 Ill.App.3d 800, 803, 288 N.E.2d 533, 535.) Such information may come from the defendant himself, competent witnesses, the prosecuting attorney, or a presentence report. (People v. Horne (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 10, 12, 314 N.E.2d 633, 634.) In People v. Warship (1974), 59 Ill.2d 125, 129-30, 319 N.E.2d 507, 509-510, the court stated that a factual basis need not be determined at the change of plea, so long as it is determined before the imposition of the sentence. Thus, a hearing ... ...