People v. Kail

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Kail

328 N.E.2d 33, 28 Ill. App. 3d 244, 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2231

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 8, 1975

DocketNo. 12781

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 328 N.E.2d 33 (People v. Kail) 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. Kail, 328 N.E.2d 33, 28 Ill. App. 3d 244, 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2231 (Ill. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant was convicted for .the offense of burglary upon his plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment. The defendant has appealed. The State appellate defender was appointed as counsel for the defendant on appeal, and that counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. Attached to the motion to withdraw is a brief conforming to the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396. The proof of service shows service of that brief upon the defendant. Upon its own motion, this court granted the defendant leave to file additional points and authorities, and none have been filed.

In discharging our responsibility, we have examined the record in this case. We have concluded, as has the appellate defender, that there are no justiciable issues for review and that any review would be frivolous. The defendant was represented at the trial level by the public defender. The indictment is sufficiently in the language of tire statute and charges the defendant with the offense of burglary. The defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and was allowed to enter a plea, of guilty only after full compliance by the trial court with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 402). Furthermore, the trial court determined that there was a factual basis for the plea and that the plea was made voluntarily.

A presentence report was .prepared, and a sentencing hearing was held. The defendant was sentenced to a term of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment which is within the statutorily permissible bounds for the offense of burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 19 — 1(b) and 1005 — 8— 1(b)(3), (c)(3)). Although appellate counsel stated that any claim of excessiveness of this sentence was rendered moot because the defendant was admitted to parole during the pendency of this appeal, we do not have to decide whether that issue is moot, for our review of the record discloses that the defendant had a record of several prior misdemeanor convictions and that in view of the sentence imposed any appeal on the issue of the excessiveness of sentence would be frivolous.

Therefore, the motion to withdraw is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

SIMKINS, P. J., and TRAPP, J., concur.

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

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant was convicted for .the offense of burglary upon his plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment. The defendant has appealed. The State appellate defender was appointed as counsel for the defendant on appeal, and that counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. Attached to the motion to withdraw is a brief conforming to the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396. The proof of service shows service of that brief upon the defendant. Upon its own motion, this court granted the defendant leave to file additional points and authorities, and none have been filed.

In discharging our responsibility, we have examined the record in this case. We have concluded, as has the appellate defender, that there are no justiciable issues for review and that any review would be frivolous. The defendant was represented at the trial level by the public defender. The indictment is sufficiently in the language of tire statute and charges the defendant with the offense of burglary. The defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and was allowed to enter a plea, of guilty only after full compliance by the trial court with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 402). Furthermore, the trial court determined that there was a factual basis for the plea and that the plea was made voluntarily.

A presentence report was .prepared, and a sentencing hearing was held. The defendant was sentenced to a term of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment which is within the statutorily permissible bounds for the offense of burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 19 — 1(b) and 1005 — 8— 1(b)(3), (c)(3)). Although appellate counsel stated that any claim of excessiveness of this sentence was rendered moot because the defendant was admitted to parole during the pendency of this appeal, we do not have to decide whether that issue is moot, for our review of the record discloses that the defendant had a record of several prior misdemeanor convictions and that in view of the sentence imposed any appeal on the issue of the excessiveness of sentence would be frivolous.

Therefore, the motion to withdraw is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

SIMKINS, P. J., and TRAPP, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 N.E.2d 33, 28 Ill. App. 3d 244, 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kail-illappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack