Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Wilson

OCTOBER 31, 1974.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

GWENDOLYN WILSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. CALVIN R. STONE, Judge, presiding. MR. JUSTICE DIXON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

On December 14, 1972, the defendant, Gwendolyn Wilson, was indicted for the offense of theft of property having a value over $150. On March 12, 1973, the defendant, as a result of plea negotiations, entered into a negotiated plea which covered the theft charge as well as several prostitution charges. She plead guilty to the charges and, pursuant to the agreement, was sentenced by the Circuit Court of Peoria County to a term of imprisonment of from 1 1/2 years to 4 1/2 years for theft and a period of 6 months each for the other offenses, all of the terms to be concurrent.

Defendant contends on this appeal that: (1) the record is insufficient in furnishing a factual basis for the plea in that it fails to show how she accomplished the theft, and that it fails to show that she intended to commit the offense and; (2) that she was never admonished concerning the mandatory parole term which is now provided for in the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1001-1-1 et seq.). She concedes that all other requirements of Rule 402 were properly met.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 provides in pertinent part:

"In hearings on pleas of guilty, there must be substantial compliance with the following:

(c) Determining Factual Basis for Plea. The court shall not enter final judgment on a plea of guilty without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 402.

The opinion in People v. Hudson, 7 Ill. App.3d 800, contains a particularly interesting discussion of the procedure the judge may use to comply with subparagraph (c) of the rule.

"The requirement of Rule 402(c) is met when it appears on the record that there is a basis for reasonably concluding that the defendant actually committed the acts with the intent (if any) required to constitute the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty. It is not necessary that it appear on the record beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense. (See ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, Par. 1.6, Approved Draft, 1968). All that is required to appear on the record is a basis upon which the judge could reasonably reach the conclusion that there is a connection between the defendant's acts and the intent with which he acted and the acts and intent (if any) required to constitute the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty." People v. Hudson, 7 Ill. App.3d 800, 803.

• 1 A factual basis may be demonstrated by having the prosecuting attorney summarize the testimony he could present to show the defendant committed the crime. People v. Bowers, 47 Ill.2d 585.

The following exchanges between the court, the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney and the defendant are relevant:

"The Court: And, Mr. Solomon [prosecuting attorney] the Court would inquire of you as to what the evidence would show in reference to the Defendant's guilt if there were a trial in these cases to which she has entered a plea of guilty?

Mr. Solomon: As to the felony Count of Theft, 72CM3837, the evidence would show through the presentation of testimony, that on Nov. 1st, 1972, the Defendant went to D. Schaffer South, Inc., located at 244 S.W. Jefferson in the City and County of Peoria and State of Illinois and did obtain and exert unauthorized control over a pants suit, the property of D. Schaffer South, Inc., with the intent to permanently deprive the owners of the use and benefit of said property, said defendant not being authorized at that time to obtain such property from D. Schaffer South, Inc.

The Court: And in the felony charge of Theft, what would the evidence show the value of the property taken to have been at the time of the taking?

Mr. Solomon: The value of the suit at the time of its taking Nov. 1, 1972 would be $200.00.

The Court: Mr. Covey [defense attorney] would you agree that if there had been a trial in each of these cases, that the evidence would have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.