People v. Huard

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Huard

317 N.E.2d 375, 22 Ill. App. 3d 198

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 1, 1974

DocketNo. 73-215

StatusPublished

This text of 317 N.E.2d 375 (People v. Huard) 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. Huard, 317 N.E.2d 375, 22 Ill. App. 3d 198 (Ill. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE CREBS

delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 13, 1973, Robert Carroll Huard was charged by information with the offense of deceptive practice. Subsequently defendant pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 1 year in accordance with plea negotiations. Defendant appeals on the grounds of defective information, failure to sufficiently inform him of right to counsel, alleged violations of Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 402) and improper sentencing. Defendant has been released on bond.

Defendant first contends that the information is fatally defective because it does not allege intent to defraud as required in People v. Greene, 92 Ill.App.2d 201, 235 N.E.2d 295; People v. Samples, 80 Ill. App.2d 182, 224 N.E.2d 284; and People v. Billingsley, 67 Ill.App.2d 292, 213 N.E.2d 765.

We also note that the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 17 — 1) commences as follows: “A person commits a deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud * *

We agree that it is necessary to allege intent to defraud. In view of this holding it is unnecessary to discuss the other contentions.

Judgment reversed.

G. MORAN, P. J., and EBERSPACHER, J., concur.

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

Mr. JUSTICE CREBS

delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 13, 1973, Robert Carroll Huard was charged by information with the offense of deceptive practice. Subsequently defendant pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 1 year in accordance with plea negotiations. Defendant appeals on the grounds of defective information, failure to sufficiently inform him of right to counsel, alleged violations of Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 402) and improper sentencing. Defendant has been released on bond.

Defendant first contends that the information is fatally defective because it does not allege intent to defraud as required in People v. Greene, 92 Ill.App.2d 201, 235 N.E.2d 295; People v. Samples, 80 Ill. App.2d 182, 224 N.E.2d 284; and People v. Billingsley, 67 Ill.App.2d 292, 213 N.E.2d 765.

We also note that the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 17 — 1) commences as follows: “A person commits a deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud * *

We agree that it is necessary to allege intent to defraud. In view of this holding it is unnecessary to discuss the other contentions.

Judgment reversed.

G. MORAN, P. J., and EBERSPACHER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 N.E.2d 375, 22 Ill. App. 3d 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huard-illappct-1974.

Opinion

G. MORAN, P. J., and EBERSPACHER, J., concur.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack