People v. Sutherland
| Decision Date | 01 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-84-0120,4-84-0120 |
| Citation | 470 N.E.2d 1210,83 Ill.Dec. 790,128 Ill.App.3d 415 |
| Parties | , 83 Ill.Dec. 790 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall W. SUTHERLAND, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Karen Munoz, Staff Atty., Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.
Tim P. Olson, State's Atty., Jacksonville, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Kevin T. McClain, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant Randall Sutherland pleaded guilty to the charge of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(a)) in Morgan County case No. 83-TR-2592 and was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment and ordered to pay court costs. His motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and vacate the judgment was denied. Defendant appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Morgan County, urging that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment on a record showing that he was not adequately admonished pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402 (87 Ill.2d R. 402), and (2) imposing a sentence of imprisonment without finding that he posed a threat to the public or that imposition of probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 1005-6-1(a)).
Defendant was charged with this offense on October 17, 1983. On the following day the court called for hearing various traffic tickets, including this charge and Morgan County cases Nos. 83-TR-2593 (), 83-TR-2594 () and 83-TR-2595 (improper lane usage), and a misdemeanor, Morgan County case No. 83-CM-195 (deceptive practice). The defendant stated that he understood the charges and wished to represent himself. He entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and requested jury trial.
On November 9, 1983, represented by counsel, the defendant, through counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty on this charge pursuant to plea negotiations with the State's Attorney. Defense counsel stated that under the agreement the defendant would make restitution on the deceptive practice charge, and all charges except driving under the influence would be dismissed. The State had indicated it would not seek a jail term and the plea agreement was otherwise open. Defense counsel requested the court to refer the cause to the probation department for presentencing investigation so he could argue for supervision. The State agreed to referral. The report of proceedings at the time the plea was taken includes this questioning of the defendant by the court:
Your motion for leave to withdraw the plea of not guilty heretofore entered to the charge in 83-TR-2592, * * * is withdrawn.
Are you ready now that I ask you once again how you plead to the charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor?
A factual basis was provided by the prosecutor, with which the defense counsel and the defendant agreed. The court found a factual basis for the charge and guilty plea, and found the plea knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily entered. The plea was accepted, defendant was found guilty as charged, and the matter was referred to the probation department for investigation.
Defendant was sentenced after hearing on December 2, 1983, to 30 days' imprisonment. Mittimus was stayed pending appeal. On December 8, 1983, defendant moved to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment and sentence thereon. The trial judge denied the motion.
We first consider defendant's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment because he was not adequately admonished pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402. The State argues the defendant has waived his right to appeal this issue as his motion made no mention of the trial court's alleged failure to admonish him of the right to trial or the right to confront witnesses (87 Ill.2d R. 402(a)(4)). (People v. Adkisson (1980), 83 Ill.2d 1, 46 Ill.Dec. 125, 413 N.E.2d 1238.) This argument is without merit.
Examination of defendant's motion reflects that he alleged the trial court had failed to admonish him pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402(a), stating further particularization of the issue required a transcript of the proceedings at which he had pleaded guilty. The court ruled on the motion by letter opinion filed February 3, 1984, after reading the transcripts in this cause, without further hearing, and did not address whether its admonitions had been in substantial compliance with Supreme Court Rule 402(a). Further, People v. Evans (1967), 37 Ill.2d 27, 31-32, 224 N.E.2d 778, 781, held that if admonishment of the consequences of a plea of guilty by the trial court was improper, the law of waiver would be inapplicable since the defendant could not have knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. (People v. Weakley (1970), 45 Ill.2d 549, 552, 259 N.E.2d 802, 804; see also Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274.) We deem application of the waiver doctrine inappropriate in this case.
Defendant first maintains that the trial court did not personally inquire of him and admonish him that (1) he had the right to plead not guilty and to persist in that plea (87 Ill.2d R. 402(a)(3)), and (2) if he pleaded guilty, there would not be a trial of any kind and that he would be waiving his right to a jury trial and the right to confront witnesses against him (87 Ill.2d R. 402(a)(4)). Defendant's second claim is that at no time prior to accepting his guilty plea did the trial court inform him it was not bound by the terms of the agreement and could impose any sentence legally available for the offense as required under Supreme Court Rule 402(d). (87 Ill.2d 402(d).) Defendant alleges that as a direct result of the court's failure to make these admonishments as required by Rule 402, his guilty plea was not knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily entered.
Supreme Court Rule 402 states in pertinent part:
"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 * * *;
(3) 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; and
(4) that if he pleads guilty there will not be a trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty he waives the right to a trial by jury and the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
* * *
* * *
(d) Plea Discussions and Agreements. When there is a plea discussion or plea agreement, the following provisions * * * shall apply:
* * *
* * *
(2) If a tentative plea agreement has been reached by the parties which contemplates entry of a plea of guilty in the expectation that a specified sentence will be imposed or that other charges before the court will be dismissed, the trial judge may permit, upon request of the parties, the disclosure to him of the tentative agreement and the reasons therefor in advance of the tender of the plea. * * * The judge may then indicate to the parties whether he will concur in the proposed disposition; * * *. If he has indicated his concurrence or conditional concurrence, he shall so state in open court at the time the agreement is stated as required by paragraph (b) of this rule. If the defendant thereupon pleads guilty, but the trial judge later withdraws his concurrence or conditional concurrence, he shall so advise the parties and then call upon the defendant either to affirm or to withdraw his plea of guilty. * * *
(3) If the parties have not sought or the trial judge has declined to give his concurrence or conditional concurrence to a plea agreement, he shall inform the defendant in open court at the time the agreement is stated as required by paragraph (b) of this rule that the court is not bound by the plea agreement, and that if the defendant persists in his plea the disposition may be different from that contemplated by the plea agreement." (87 Ill.2d R. 402.)
We note initially that the rule requires substantial, not literal, compliance with its provisions.
In considering defendant's claim under Rule 402(a) in reviewing admonishments under that subsection, the entire record may be considered in determining whether or not there was an understanding by the accused of admonishments. (See People v. Krantz (1974), 58...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burge
...of Illinois cases where substantial compliance was either found or absent, this court in People v. Sutherland , 128 Ill. App. 3d 415, 425-26, 83 Ill.Dec. 790, 470 N.E.2d 1210, 1218 (1984), reiterating its holding in People v. Porter , 61 Ill. App. 3d 941, 945, 19 Ill.Dec. 173, 378 N.E.2d 78......
-
People v. Smith
...as conveying the information required by Rule 402, then there has been substantial compliance. People v. Sutherland, 128 Ill.App.3d 415, 419, 83 Ill.Dec. 790, 470 N.E.2d 1210, 1214 (1984). We believe that an ordinary person in the defendant's circumstances would not understand the trial cou......
-
People v. Akers
...based upon implications from the record and testimony at post-conviction proceedings. (Culp; People v. Sutherland (1984), 128 Ill.App.3d 415, 83 Ill.Dec. 790, 470 N.E.2d 1210.) The transcripts of the June 4, 1982, and July 8, 1982, hearings substantiate that defendant was not advised of the......
-
People v. Sampson
...the sufficiency of admonitions given defendant under Rule 402, which this court recently discussed in People v. Sutherland (1984), 128 Ill.App.3d 415, 83 Ill.Dec. 790, 470 N.E.2d 1210. Defendant next argues that he was not proved guilty of driving too fast for conditions, citing People v. H......