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. Collins

OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 1981.

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

v.

SUZANNE COLLINS, A/K/A SUANNE LASCH ET AL., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston County; the Hon. WILLIAM T. CAISLEY, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE GREEN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Defendant Suzanne Collins appeals her conviction of theft by deception (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 16-1(b)(1)) and subsequent sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, all entered in the circuit court of Livingston County. She maintains that the trial court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty and in considering improper matters and proceeding without a presentencing report at sentencing. As we rule that defendant must be given leave to withdraw her plea, we need not consider the propriety of the procedure at sentencing.

On April 6, 1981, defendant appeared before the circuit court with her court-appointed counsel. Defendant told the court she wished to enter a plea of guilty to the charge of theft by deception, and the court was informed that the prosecution and the defendant had entered into a written plea agreement whereby the defendant was to enter the plea and agree to make restitution of $1,500 to the victim of the offense and the State agreed to nol pros an additional charge and to recommend defendant be given a 3-year sentence to run concurrently with a Federal sentence defendant was serving. The court advised defendant of her various rights and questioned her with reference to the voluntary nature of the plea. The colloquy then proceeded as follows:

"THE COURT: You have been promised something and that promise has been reduced to writing and is contained in a written plea agreement, is that correct?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that contains all of the terms and conditions of the agreement in existence between you and the State's Attorney's office?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that the court did not participate in the negotiations of this agreement?

DEFENDANT: Yes I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand that the court has not concurred conditionally or otherwise in the agreement?

DEFENDANT: Yes I do.

THE COURT: And that the court is not bound to follow it?

DEFENDANT: Yes."

The trial court proceeded in further compliance with Supreme Court Rule 402 (73 Ill.2d R. 402) and entered a judgment on the plea. The case was then called for sentencing. After hearing the prosecutor's recommendation, which was in accordance with the plea agreement, the court stated it could not accept the prosecutor's recommendation and sentenced defendant to ...


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.