APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. JAMES
D. CROSSON, Judge, presiding.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
Burglary. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, sec. 19-1.
Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of one to three years.
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON APPEAL
1. The court erred in denying defendant's motion for substitution of judges.
2. Defendant was not properly admonished as to his rights on entering his plea of guilty.
Defendant made a motion for substitution of judges on the ground that the trial judge had just convicted his brother in another case. The court denied the motion, explaining that its presentation was not timely, since the selection of the jury in defendant's case had already begun and, at defendant's request, the court had previously conducted a conference on the matter, at which time certain material evidence had been put before the court to ascertain its views. Defendant's attorney also informed the court that, at the time defendant had requested the conference, defendant had been advised that, by having a conference, he would be precluded from seeking a substitution of judges.
The record indicates that the selection of the jury had, in fact, begun before defendant made his motion for a substitution of judges. In People v. Scott, 63 Ill. App.2d 232, 243, the court, considering the timeliness of a motion for a change of venue, held that the trial had commenced when the jury was called for examination, and the motion, having been made thereafter, had come too late.
• 1 The motion in the instant case was also too late because it was made after the judge had indicated his view of certain matters in a conference held at defendant's request. As stated in Stickler v. McCarthy, 64 Ill. App.2d 1, 19-20, a party cannot "probate the attitude of a court" on issues in the case and, finding it adverse, then seek a change of venue.
Defendant's second contention is that he was not properly admonished as to the rights he was relinquishing by pleading guilty. After the denial of defendant's motion for substitution, defendant himself brought up the subject that he was on probation for a ...