People v. Buck

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Buck

288 N.E.2d 548, 7 Ill. App. 3d 758, 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 2362

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 16, 1972

Docket71-226, 71-325 cons.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 288 N.E.2d 548 (People v. Buck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Buck, 288 N.E.2d 548, 7 Ill. App. 3d 758, 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 2362 (Ill. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendants pled guilty on negotiated pleas to the crime of armed robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 38, par. 18 — 2), in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County and were sentenced to terms of eight years to eight years and one day in the penitentiary. They appeal.

They contend that the trial court failed to comply substantially with Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(2) and (3). 50 Ill.2d R. 402.

The record before us shows only this exchange on this point:

“Court: On your plea of guilty on your individual charge, you understand it will be no less than two nor more than any indeterminate time as a maximum time? Do you understand that?

Both Defendants: Yes, sir.”

There is not enough difference between this and what was said on this point in People v. Helvie, 1 Ill.App.3d 887, 275 N.E.2d 285, to rule other than we did in that case. The admonishment that a sentence may be for an “indeterminate time” is insufficient to apprise the defendant of the fact that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment. The fact that these were negotiated pleas does not remove this case from the rule stated in People v. Helvie, 1 Ill.App.3d 887, 275 N.E.2d 285; and People v. Terry, 44 Ill.2d 38, 253 N.E.2d 383. The argument that negotiated pleas should be treated differently in this respect was rejected by this court in People v. Fairchild (133 Ill.App.2d), 272 N.E.2d 445, wherein it was stated unequivocally that it is a “mandatory requirement that a defendant be specifically informed of the maximum punishment.”

For .the foregoing reason the judgment of the trial court is reversed and these cases are remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County with directions that defendant be allowed to plead anew.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

EBERSPACHER and CREBS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendants pled guilty on negotiated pleas to the crime of armed robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 38, par. 18 — 2), in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County and were sentenced to terms of eight years to eight years and one day in the penitentiary. They appeal.

They contend that the trial court failed to comply substantially with Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(2) and (3). 50 Ill.2d R. 402.

The record before us shows only this exchange on this point:

“Court: On your plea of guilty on your individual charge, you understand it will be no less than two nor more than any indeterminate time as a maximum time? Do you understand that?

Both Defendants: Yes, sir.”

There is not enough difference between this and what was said on this point in People v. Helvie, 1 Ill.App.3d 887, 275 N.E.2d 285, to rule other than we did in that case. The admonishment that a sentence may be for an “indeterminate time” is insufficient to apprise the defendant of the fact that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment. The fact that these were negotiated pleas does not remove this case from the rule stated in People v. Helvie, 1 Ill.App.3d 887, 275 N.E.2d 285; and People v. Terry, 44 Ill.2d 38, 253 N.E.2d 383. The argument that negotiated pleas should be treated differently in this respect was rejected by this court in People v. Fairchild (133 Ill.App.2d), 272 N.E.2d 445, wherein it was stated unequivocally that it is a “mandatory requirement that a defendant be specifically informed of the maximum punishment.”

For .the foregoing reason the judgment of the trial court is reversed and these cases are remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County with directions that defendant be allowed to plead anew.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

EBERSPACHER and CREBS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 N.E.2d 548, 7 Ill. App. 3d 758, 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 2362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-buck-illappct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack