People v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 31 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 11207 |
| Citation | 128 Ill.App.2d 351,262 N.E.2d 105 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Traynor & Hendricks, Duane L. Traynor, Springfield, for appellant.
Richard A. Hollis, State's Atty., Charles Anthony Packard, Springfield, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his conviction on a charge of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. His conviction of this misdemeanor resulted in a fine of $100.
The record discloses that at 1:40 A.M. on July 10, 1969, the defendant was arrested by a State trooper and taken to the Sangamon County jail, having been charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. At 10:00 A.M. on the same date, he was arraigned before a magistrate in the circuit court. The magistrate informed the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, advised him of his right to remain silent, and advised him that he was entitled to a trial by jury and that he was entitled to counsel of his own choosing. The magistrate also advised the defendant of the possible penalty that could be imposed by the court for the charged offense.
Following this admonition, the defendant informed the magistrate that he was not represented by counsel and had no desire to obtain a lawyer.
The defendant then pleaded guilty to the charge of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Following his plea but prior to the imposition of sentence, the defendant stated to the magistrate:
'I also wish to state for the record that while I was in the Sangamon County jail I was refused to the right to make a phone call, and I was refused to the right of counsel.'
The court again inquired of the defendant as to whether or not he desired to retain counsel. The defendant replied in the negative and advised the court that this was his first offense.
Following this colloquy, the defendant signed a waiver of a jury trial and entered a written plea of guilty. The magistrate assessed a fine in the amount of $100, the minimum fine, which fine the defendant paid.
Four days later, the defendant filed a verified petition to vacate the judgment of conviction and sought leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. This petition was heard on July 23, 1969, and denied. This appeal follows.
It is the defendant's contention in this appeal that his civil rights were so violated as to require this court to discharge him, or he contends that we should hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the defendant's petition to vacate the judgment of conviction. It is further asserted that the trial court erred in accepting a plea of guilty from the unrepresented defendant where the trial court failed to advise him of all of the consequences of the plea.
Our review of this record persuades us that the defendant was fully admonished as to all of the judicial consequences that could flow from his plea of guilty. The plea of guilty was voluntarily made.
We are not persuaded that the plea of guilty was in any way induced by the refusal to allow the defendant access to a telephone, and the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant had ample opportunity to obtain a lawyer. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Viens
...the rule has not seemed to indicate that the courts are bound by so broad a duty as defendant posits. In People v. Jenkins (1970), 128 Ill.App.2d 351, 262 N.E.2d 105, the court held that no reversal was required due to a trial court's failure to inform a defendant that his guilty plea could......
-
Villa v. State
...not a criminal penalty or punishment. City of Albany v. Key, Ga.App., 124 Ga.App. 16, 183 S.E.2d 20 (1971); People v. Jenkins, Ill.App., 128 Ill.App.2d 351, 262 N.E.2d 105 (1970); Commonwealth v. Burnett, Ky.Ct.App., 274 Ky. 231, 118 S.W.2d 558 (1938); Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, ......
-
People v. Finley
...of intoxicating liquor was not part of the punishment for that offense, but merely a regulatory measure. In People v. Jenkins, 128 Ill.App.2d 351, 262 N.E.2d 105, 107, the Appellate Court in citing People v. Kobylak, said that a revocation of a driver's license for one year by the Secretary......
-
People v. Terneus
...not inform the guilty-pleading defendant of collateral consequences in order to comply with that statute); People v. Jenkins (1970), 128 Ill.App.2d 351, 355, 262 N.E.2d 105, 107. Based on the foregoing authority, we hold that defendants pleading guilty to criminal charges are on notice that......