People v. Palmer
Citation | 1 Ill.App.3d 492,274 N.E.2d 910 |
Decision Date | 10 September 1971 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 54480 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William H. PALMER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, John T. Moran, Jr., James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel, for appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty. of Cook County, Robert A. Novelle, James Sternik, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the crime of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant was charged by indictment with murder. He entered a plea of not guilty to that charge. However, at trial, on May 6, 1969, he entered a plea of guilty to the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter. The plea was accepted by the court and defendant was sentenced after a hearing in aggravation and mitigation to a term of three to ten years. On appeal it is argued that acceptance of the plea was error for the reasons that before accepting the plea the court: (1) failed to ascertain whether defendant understood the nature of the charge against him; and (2) failed to warn him that his plea of guilty waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to confront his accusers.
The record reflects the following exchange at trial:
When you withdraw your plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty, you automatically waive your right of trial by jury.
Do you understand that?
Knowing this do you still persist in your plea of guilty?
Defendant argues first that the court erred in not determining before accepting the plea whether he understood the nature of the charge against him. In asserting this argument defendant relies upon McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and People v. Washington, 5 Ill.2d 58, 124 N.E.2d 890 (1955).
We do not find defendant's argument based upon People v. Washington, Supra, to be persuasive. In that case the defendant's conviction was reversed for the reason that he had been permitted to plead guilty to 'Count One and Count Nine of the Indictment' without the court's determination on the record that he knew what offenses were charged by those counts or the penalties attached thereto.
Examination of the opinion in McCarthy v. United States, Supra, indicates that that decision was expressly based upon the Court's construction of United States Supreme Court Rule 11 rather than constitutional grounds and is therefor not controlling here. Although, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated in People v. Mims, 42 Ill.2d 441, 248 N.E.2d 92 (1969) that the reasoning of McCarthy is applicable to Supreme Court Rule 401 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 110A, par. 401) that rule does not require that the court state all of the acts which constitute the offense, but that it give its 'essence, general character, kind or sort.' People v. Carter, 107 Ill.App.2d 474, 246 N.E.2d 320 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1008, 90 S.Ct. 1236, 25 L.Ed.2d 421. See also People v. Burdick, 117 Ill.App.2d 314, 254 N.E.2d 148 (1969).
In the case at bar the court specifically asked defendant if, knowing that he could receive a sentence of one to twenty years on a plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter, he wished to persist in his plea. Defendant's plea was accepted after an affirmative response to that question. We believe that defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial