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.

In Re Beasley

OPINION FILED JANUARY 28, 1976.

IN RE SHAWN BEASLEY, A MINOR. — (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,

v.

SHAWN BEASLEY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.)



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. ERWIN L. MARTAY and the Hon. PETER F. COSTA, Judges, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE BURMAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Respondent, Shawn Beasley, brings this appeal from an order of the circuit court, Juvenile Division, wherein he was adjudged to be a delinquent and was committed to the Department of Corrections. The order was entered pursuant to respondent's admission that on July 20, 1974, he committed the offense of burglary in that without authority he knowingly entered a railroad shanty with the intent to commit therein a theft in violation of section 19-1 of the Illinois Criminal Code. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 19-1.

On appeal respondent contends that (1) his due process rights were violated when the court accepted his admission to burglary without proper admonishment, and (2) the court did not comply with the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act in that it failed to determine that an adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the Department of Corrections were in his best interests.

The facts of the instant cause are not in dispute. On July 30, 1974, the County Department of the Juvenile Division filed a petition for adjudication of wardship against respondent. The petition alleged that respondent, a minor, was a delinquent by reason of the fact that he committed a burglary as described above. The Public Defender was appointed to represent him. When the cause came up for trial on August 6, 1974, the Public Defender informed the court that there was going to be an admission. He stated that respondent had been advised of his constitutional rights, and that after having been so advised had elected to waive those rights and make an admission to the charge. The following courtroom colloquy then occurred:

"THE COURT: Young man, were you advised of your legal Constitutional Rights when you spoke to the lawyer?

THE RESPONDENT: Yes.

THE COURT: And were you advised that you had a right to deny the burglary and that you had a right to trial in court?

THE RESPONDENT: Yes.

THE COURT: That you have a right to have your lawyer cross-examine all state's witnesses in open court? And you're presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That you have a right to have the state's attorney prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt? And that you admit to the burglary?

THE RESPONDENT: Yes.

THE COURT: Without any promises?

THE RESPONDENT: Yes.

THE COURT: And do you understand that I could send you away to the ...


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.