People v. McIntyre
| Decision Date | 27 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-91-0249,4-91-0249 |
| Citation | 164 Ill.Dec. 545,583 N.E.2d 99,221 Ill.App.3d 810 |
| Parties | , 164 Ill.Dec. 545 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Lee McINTYRE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, Office of State Appellate Defender, Gloria Ann Morris, Asst. Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.
Lawrence R. Fichter, State's Atty., Decatur, Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, Dale M. Wood, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.
Following a stipulated bench trial conducted in the circuit court of Macon County, defendant Bruce Lee McIntyre was found guilty of violating his bail bond on or about August 2, 1990. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 38, par. 32-10.) Defendant had been admitted to bail on May 10, 1990, while charged with residential burglary (Macon County Case No. 90-CF-326). He forfeited his bond by failing to appear in court on July 2, 1990, at 9:30 a.m. and he wilfully failed to surrender himself within 30 days thereafter. For the bail bond violation, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for residential burglary. Defendant was given credit for 75 days previously served.
In his appeal, defendant raises only one issue. He asks this court to determine whether, since the stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea, the trial court failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402. (134 Ill.2d R. 402.) Specifically, he contends the trial court did not tell him that he had a right to plead not guilty, or to persist in that plea, and further failed to determine if his decision to participate in a stipulated trial was voluntary. The State agrees the stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea since only the issue of double jeopardy was preserved. (People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill.2d 236, 239, 319 N.E.2d 760, 762; see also People v. Horton (1991), 143 Ill.2d 11, 22, 155 Ill.Dec. 807, 812, 570 N.E.2d 320, 325.) However, the State contends the trial court substantially complied with Rule 402. Even though the parties concede a stipulated bench trial is tantamount to a guilty plea, it is not argued, nor do we find, that a motion equivalent to a motion to withdraw a guilty plea must first be presented to and considered in the trial court before this court has jurisdiction to address the issues arising from the stipulated bench trial. People v. Wilk (1988), 124 Ill.2d 93, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218; see 134 Ill.2d R. 604(d).
It is not argued by defendant that the admonishments that were given are improper or misleading (see People v. Davis (1991), 145 Ill.2d 240, 164 Ill.Dec. 151, 582 N.E.2d 714), but only that they are not sufficiently in compliance with Rule 402. Nor does defendant contend the stipulated facts are insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even more significantly, defendant does not contend the stipulation resulted from force, threats, or undisclosed promises.
Substantial, not literal, compliance with Rule 402 is all that is necessary. (People v. Krantz (1974), 58 Ill.2d 187, 192, 317 N.E.2d 559, 562.) After defense counsel told the judge defendant was waiving a jury trial, the judge asked defendant if he heard that statement and whether he was willing to give up his right to a trial by jury. Defendant said yes. He was further asked:
"THE COURT: And do you understand what that means?
MR. McINTYRE: Yes, sir I do.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
MR. McINTYRE: No.
THE COURT: And are you willing to give up the right to a trial by the jury of your own free will?
MR. McINTYRE: Yes, sir."
After so responding, defendant signed a written waiver of trial by jury in open court.
Thereafter, the judge explained the pending charge, and defendant stated he understood the allegation. The trial court also explained the possible fines, periods of incarceration, mandatory parole, the mandatory consecutive sentence, and the possibility of an extended term. Defendant said he understood. Defendant also said he understood the court's admonishments about giving up the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who might testify against him and the right to subpoena witnesses to testify on his behalf. When asked if he had any questions, the following discussion was had:
MR. McINTYRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that what you want to do?
MR. McINTYRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
MR. McINTYRE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We will proceed then with the Bench Trial, and what are the facts in the case?"
After considering the stipulated facts and denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on an argument of double jeopardy, the trial court found defendant guilty of the bail bond violation.
Defendant complains the trial court failed to admonish him "that the defendant has the right to plead not guilty, or to persist in that plea if it has already been made, or to plead guilty." (134 Ill.2d R. 402(a)(3).) Defendant's argument misses the subtle difference between a stipulated bench trial and a guilty plea. While a stipulated bench trial is, in many respects, similar to a guilty plea, in one very important respect they differ. Defendant did not plead guilty in this case, but instead persisted in his plea of not guilty and required the trial court to render a finding of guilty or not guilty on the facts which were not disputed. In fact, defense counsel specifically corrected the trial court, indicating defendant was not technically giving up his right to trial. Furthermore, after the assistant State's Attorney related the facts to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Matthews
...offense, while other elements are not so stipulated, do not amount to actual concessions of guilt. See People v. McIntyre, 221 Ill.App.3d 810, 813, 164 Ill.Dec. 545, 583 N.E.2d 99 (1991) ("Defendant did not plead guilty in this case, but instead persisted in his plea of not guilty and requi......
-
People v. Mueller
...N.E.2d 320 (1991). There is a subtle difference between a stipulated bench trial and a guilty plea. People v. McIntyre, 221 Ill.App.3d 810, 813, 164 Ill.Dec. 545, 583 N.E.2d 99 (1991). “Whether a stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea is a question of law, which this courts ......
-
People v. Manuel
...nothing. Thereafter, the trial court admonished the defendant in accordance with Rule 605(a). In People v. McIntyre (1991), 221 Ill.App.3d 810, 812, 164 Ill.Dec. 545, 546, 583 N.E.2d 99, 100, this court addressed a similar situation in which a defendant received a stipulated bench trial, wa......
-
People v. Bond
...to defendants who plead guilty. (Horton, 143 Ill.2d at 22, 155 Ill.Dec. 807, 570 N.E.2d 320; People v. McIntyre (1991), 221 Ill.App.3d 810, 812, 813, 164 Ill.Dec. 545, 583 N.E.2d 99.) However, although a stipulation of guilt is similar to a guilty plea, it is not merely a mislabled guilty p......