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. Pettis

OPINION FILED JANUARY 6, 1983.

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

v.

LARRY PETTIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. Harvey Beam, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE TRAPP DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Following the withdrawal of pleas of not guilty defendant pleaded guilty upon two counts of armed robbery. The guilty pleas were without negotiation, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 12 years.

The proceedings leading to this appeal are anomalous and require scrutiny. Count I of the information alleged the armed robbery of the manager of a liquor store. Count II alleged the accompanying armed robbery of a woman patron of that store. Defendant filed a pro se motion to vacate only the judgment of guilty entered upon count II. Appointed counsel filed an amended motion to vacate such judgment embodying the allegations made pro se. At the hearing held defendant reiterated that he only desired to vacate the plea as to count II.

The allegations of the motion to vacate count II and the minimal testimony in support of the motion are essentially a repudiation of the facts given as the basis of the plea of guilty, and a claim that defendant did not understand the burden of proof upon the prosecution to establish the armed robbery of the store patron.

We have examined the extended and careful admonition of the trial court and the record made and find no error in the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment upon count II.

As argued here, the appeal is directed to the denial of defendant's motion to reduce the sentences imposed on both counts I and II. Section 5-8-1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(c)) provides:

"(c) The trial court may reduce or modify a sentence, but shall not increase the length thereof by order entered not later than 30 days from the date that sentence was imposed. This shall not enlarge the jurisdiction of the court for any other purpose."

We must determine the appealability of the order denying reduction of sentence on count I.

Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (87 Ill.2d R. 604(d)) provides in part:

"No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. The motion shall be in writing and shall state the grounds therefor."

Supreme Court Rule 605(b)(2), (6) (87 Ill.2d R. 605(b)(2), (6)) provides:

"(b) In all cases in which a judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty, at the time of imposing sentence, the trial court shall advise the defendant substantially as follows:

(2) That prior to taking an appeal he must file in the trial court, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, a written motion asking to have the judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, setting forth his grounds for the motion;

(6) That in any appeal taken from the judgment on the plea of guilty any issue or claim of error not raised in the motion to vacate the judgment and to withdraw ...


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.