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. May

JANUARY 13, 1975.

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

v.

ROBERT MAY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County; the Hon. JOSEPH F. CUNNINGHAM, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE CARTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. The defendant, Robert May, and others were charged in an indictment for the offense of armed robbery. The defendant pled guilty to the charge of armed robbery and was sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections to a term of 4 to 8 years as the result of a plea agreement.

The defendant bases his appeal on two points: (1) the court erred in failing to consider his request to lower the offense; (2) he was not truly aware of the consequences of his plea when the court made no mention of the mandatory parole term he must serve under section 5-8-1(e) (1) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(e)(1)).

On March 1, 1973, the defendant, through his attorney, withdrew his plea of not guilty and notified the court that he wished to plead guilty to the charge of armed robbery. Before accepting the plea, the trial judge advised the defendant of the consequences of his plea, of his right to have a jury trial and of his right to be represented by an attorney. He was also told that there would be no jury trial if the plea was accepted. The plea negotiations were entered into the record, and the court determined that the plea was voluntary. The court was then provided with a factual basis for the plea by an assistant State's Attorney. The defendant in his brief admits that the facts stated by the prosecution provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the defendant committed the acts charged with the required intent.

The defendant was asked by the court if there was anything he wanted to add to the statement made by the prosecution. The defendant indicated that he did not know there was going to be a robbery, and then the following exchange took place:

"COURT: At this time, the Court can do as I told you, either accept the plea or not accept the plea. But the Court is going to at this time, accept your plea of guilty to the offense as set out in the indictment. Further, I would like to obtain from you, Robert, has anyone threatened you, or any member of your family or anyone, to get you to say you are guilty of armed robbery? Has anybody threatened you to get you to say you are guilty?

DEFENDANT: No, sir.

COURT: Has anybody promised you anything to get you to say you are guilty of armed robbery?

DEFENDANT: No, sir.

COURT: And do you, as you stand there right now, Robert May, persist in your plea of guilty to armed robbery as set forth in the indictment?

DEFENDANT: I don't think I would ever change in a trial, sir. I persist.

COURT: And you are saying to me that you are guilty and that you wish to persist in the plea of guilty to armed robbery?

DEFENDANT: I wish it could be less than armed robbery.

COURT: That is not within the power of this court. That's within the province of ...


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.