People v. Gold

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Gold

425 N.E.2d 1337, 99 Ill. App. 3d 468, 55 Ill. Dec. 164, 1981 Ill. App. LEXIS 3185

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedSeptember 2, 1981

DocketNo. 81-12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 425 N.E.2d 1337 (People v. Gold) 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. Gold, 425 N.E.2d 1337, 99 Ill. App. 3d 468, 55 Ill. Dec. 164, 1981 Ill. App. LEXIS 3185 (Ill. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE HEIPLE

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, who entered a blind plea on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a revoked driver’s license, was sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment following a sentencing hearing. He appeals and raises a single issue. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel neglected to have the sentencing hearing transcribed. We affirm.

The offense in question is a misdemeanor. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 95½, par. 6 — 303(a).) There is neither statutory nor case law requirement for the transcription of a sentencing hearing in a misdemeanor case.

Moreover, in this case, an adequate agreed statement of facts was filed by the parties. The agreed statement indicates the matters presented at the sentencing hearing by way of mitigation and aggravation. The record is sufficient in this case to review the sentencing proceedings. The method provided by our supreme court for perfecting a record on appeal in the absence of a transcript is, while not perfect, acceptable. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 323(c), (d); e.g., People v. David (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 419.

In order to justify a reversal of a conviction of the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, defendant would have to demonstrate two points. First, that counsel neglected to do something that counsel should have done. And second, that the defendant was thereby prejudiced. Defendant’s argument fails on both counts. There is no legal requirement that the sentencing hearing be transcribed. And, the defendant has demonstrated no prejudice by the lack of transcription.

For the reasons stated, the order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea, is hereby affirmed.

SCOTT, P. J., and BARRY, J., concur.

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

Mr. JUSTICE HEIPLE

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, who entered a blind plea on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a revoked driver’s license, was sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment following a sentencing hearing. He appeals and raises a single issue. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel neglected to have the sentencing hearing transcribed. We affirm.

The offense in question is a misdemeanor. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 95½, par. 6 — 303(a).) There is neither statutory nor case law requirement for the transcription of a sentencing hearing in a misdemeanor case.

Moreover, in this case, an adequate agreed statement of facts was filed by the parties. The agreed statement indicates the matters presented at the sentencing hearing by way of mitigation and aggravation. The record is sufficient in this case to review the sentencing proceedings. The method provided by our supreme court for perfecting a record on appeal in the absence of a transcript is, while not perfect, acceptable. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 323(c), (d); e.g., People v. David (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 419.

In order to justify a reversal of a conviction of the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, defendant would have to demonstrate two points. First, that counsel neglected to do something that counsel should have done. And second, that the defendant was thereby prejudiced. Defendant’s argument fails on both counts. There is no legal requirement that the sentencing hearing be transcribed. And, the defendant has demonstrated no prejudice by the lack of transcription.

For the reasons stated, the order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea, is hereby affirmed.

SCOTT, P. J., and BARRY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 N.E.2d 1337, 99 Ill. App. 3d 468, 55 Ill. Dec. 164, 1981 Ill. App. LEXIS 3185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gold-illappct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack