People v. Smith
Decision Date | 08 March 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 81-1026,81-1026 |
Citation | 446 N.E.2d 876,113 Ill.App.3d 917,68 Ill.Dec. 705 |
Parties | , 68 Ill.Dec. 705 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeff SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, Paul J. Glaser, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.
Daniel D. Doyle, States Atty., Rockford, Phyllis J. Perko, Martin P. Moltz, State's Attys. Appellate Service, Com'n, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.
On December 8, 1981, the defendant, Jeff Smith, was arrested, convicted and sentenced in Winnebago County to six months imprisonment and a $25 fine for driving while license revoked and speeding. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, pars. 6-303, 11-601(b).) The former offense is a Class A misdemeanor, the latter is punishable by a fine.
The defendant was arrested at 1:45 a.m. on December 8 and taken to the Winnebago County Public Safety Building. He appeared before the circuit court later that morning at 10:30 or 11 a.m. At that time he entered a plea of guilty to charges and was sentenced as we have indicated. Later, on December 16, 1981, a motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) was filed on his behalf by counsel. That motion was heard and denied. Counsel for the defendant then filed a motion for reduction of sentence. After a hearing, the defendant's sentence was modified by the trial court to six months periodic imprisonment. The defendant appealed and raises three issues: (1) whether the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was improperly denied; (2) whether defendant's sentence was improperly imposed, and (3) whether a corrected mittimus should be issued.
Defendant asserts the trial court's acceptance of his guilty plea nine hours after his arrest constituted an egregious violation of his due process rights. Specifically, he asserts the court failed to comply with either the spirit or the letter of Supreme Court Rules 401 and 402. 87 Ill.2d Rs. 401, 402.
He contends there was an ineffective waiver of counsel, and that he was not properly admonished as to the nature of the charges, the minimum possible sentences, or his right to plead not guilty. Further, he asserts his plea was improperly accepted because there was no sufficient factual basis for the plea, and the court made no effort to determine that the plea was voluntarily and understandingly tendered as required by Supreme Court Rule 402(b). 87 Ill.2d R. 402(b).
Finally, defendant points to the facts surrounding the proceedings at which his plea was entered merely nine hours after he was arrested. He notes it was his first appearance before the judge. Considering certain comments he made about leaving after the hearing, he asserts it was clear that he did not understand the import of the proceedings which had just occurred.
The State asserts the defendant did validly waive counsel, and that the trial court strictly admonished him pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 401. (87 Ill.2d R. 401.) Alternatively, the State argues that in light of the defendant's "legal sophistication" a failure by the court to properly admonish him may be considered harmless. (People v. Jackson [1978], 59 Ill.App.3d 1004, 17 Ill.Dec. 539, 376 N.E.2d 685.) Inter alia, the record indicates the defendant served seven days in jail after pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated in June 1980, and was fined after his guilty plea to reckless driving in May 1980.
The State argues the court is not required to explain each element of the offense when informing the defendant of the nature of the charge. (People v. Nunn [1975], 29 Ill.App.3d 399, 331 N.E.2d 8), nor to explain what acts the defendant did to commit the offense. (People v. Harden [1967], 38 Ill.2d 559, 232 N.E.2d 725.) In fact, the State argues, it has been held that the mere naming of the offense was sufficient to admonish the defendant as to the nature of the charges. People v. Krantz (1974), 58 Ill.2d 187, 317 N.E.2d 559.
The State points out that the defendant's theory that more than the name of the offense is required when the defendant is not represented by counsel is unsupported by authority. Likewise, the State argues Krantz and People v. Baxter (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 471, 318 N.E.2d 765, also defeat the defendant's argument as to the court's failure to admonish as to the possible "minimum" sentences of probation, conditional discharge, or periodic imprisonment. Also, the failure to inform the defendant of the right to plead not guilty or to persist in a plea is not fatal to the guilty plea. People v. Lumley (1979), 76 Ill.App.3d 221, 31 Ill.Dec. 761, 394 N.E.2d 1079.
Finally, the State asserts that substantial compliance with Supreme Court Rule 402 is still shown even where the court fails to inquire whether any force or threats had been used against the defendant. People v. Gratton (1974), 19 Ill.App.3d 503, 311 N.E.2d 717. We are of the opinion that the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied by the trial court.
At the time the defendant entered his guilty plea the following proceedings took place before the trial court:
MR. GEMIGNANI [Assistant State's Attorney]: Yes, sir. I show in October of '69 a drinking as a minor.
We believe that this record shows the defendant was correctly admonished regarding the nature of the charges and the possible sentences which could be imposed, and the trial court did, in fact, comply with Supreme Court Rule 401(a), 87 Ill.2d R. 401(a). We also believe that the defendant's decision to waive counsel was an informed one and that he had an understanding of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Peterson
...153 Ill.App.3d 565, 569-70, 106 Ill.Dec. 537, 505 N.E.2d 1328 (1987) (see discussion below); People v. Smith, 113 Ill.App.3d 917, 924-25, 68 Ill.Dec. 705, 446 N.E.2d 876 (1983) (although not an issue, court stated that trial court may accept guilty plea even though defendant claims innocenc......
- Hughlett's Estate, In re
-
People v. Ottomanelli
...a recital to the court of evidence which supports the charge against defendant with which he concurs. (People v. Smith (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 917, 924, 68 Ill.Dec. 705, 446 N.E.2d 876.) Neither the State's Attorney, defendant or his counsel offered to the trial court any other facts which m......
-
People v. Calva
... ... 343, 361 N.E.2d 666.) The factual basis can be established by several means, including the State's summary of testimony and evidence which it would have presented at trial (Hopson, 101 Ill.App.3d at 569-70, 57 Ill.Dec. 130, 428 N.E.2d 680), or defendant's own admissions. (People v. Smith (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 917, 924, 68 Ill.Dec. 705, 446 N.E.2d 876.) The trial court can accept a guilty plea where a factual basis exists, even where the defendant maintains he is innocent. People v. Lundeen (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 21, 22, 332 N.E.2d 731; People v. Barker (1981), 83 Ill.2d at 333, ... ...