People v. Ingeneri

• Decision Date: 16 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71--339,71--339
• Citation: People v. Ingeneri, 7 Ill.App.3d 809, 288 N.E.2d 550 (Ill. App. 1972)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario James INGENERI, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 550

288 N.E.2d 550

7 Ill.App.3d 809

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario James INGENERI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71--339.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Oct. 16, 1972.

Kenneth L. Jones, District Defender, Illinois Defender Project, Mt. Vernon, Robert E. Farrell, Asst. Dist. Defender, Mt. Vernon, of counsel, for defendant-appellant.

Kenneth Powless, State's Atty., Marion, for plaintiff-appellee.

GEORGE J. MORAN, Presiding Justice.

The defendant pled guilty to the crime of armed robbery in the Circuit Court of Williamson County in violation of Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, par. 18--2, and was sentenced to a term of not less than five years nor more than 12 years in the Illinois State Penitentiary.

He contends in this appeal that the trial court failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(1) and (2), Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, § 402(a)(1, 2), which provided:

'The court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following:

(1) the nature of the charge;

(2) the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law, including, when applicable, the penalty to which the defendant may be subjected because of prior convictions or consecutive sentences.'

Defendant argues that although the trial court read to him in open court the language contained on the information filed against defendant, it made no effort to determine if defendant understood the nature of what had allegedly been read to him.

Rule 402(a)(1) requires the trial court to do more than just inform the defendant of the charge; it also requires the trial court to inform the defendant of the 'nature' of the charge. Since a guilty plea is an 'admission of all the Elements of a formal criminal charge' and 'cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts', McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, we believe the trial court must inform the defendant of the essential elements of the crime of which he is charged. In some cases this can be done by a reading of the indictment to the defendant. But it should be pointed out that merely furnishing a copy of the indictment to the defendant would not be sufficient because Rule 402(a) specifically requires the trial court to address the defendant personally in open court. Many times the indictment is couched in technical legal language and when that is the case, we will not Assume that the defendant understands this language. Here, however, there was sufficient, clear description in the charge and the use of simple, everyday words such as 'threatening * * * use of force * * * armed with * * * an automatic weapon * * * take * * * property * * * a Smith & Wesson revolver, from Frank E. Taylor * * *.' With this information any reasonable man would understand the nature of the charge.

Defendant further argues that the trial court failed to assure itself that the defendant knew and understood the minimum and maximum sentence which the court may impose upon the acceptance of defend...