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.

05/13/94 PEOPLE STATE ILLINOIS v. RICHARD BARNES

May 13, 1994

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD BARNES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Honorable Themis N. Karnezis, Judge Presiding.

McNULTY, Murray, Cousins

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcnulty

JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant Richard Barnes was charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault and attempt aggravated criminal sexual assault. On September 14, 1991, defendant pled guilty to both charges. Defendant was sentenced to 30 and 15 consecutive years in prison. On September 23, 1991, defendant filed a pro se motion for reduction of sentence alleging that:

"A. I thought in good faith, that a plea of guilty woudn't [sic] excese [sic] the max[.]

B. I didn't have anyway of defending myself, because I knew nothing of what happened.

[C.] I felt that my background should've come into play[.]

. I felt that my lawyer pressured me into copping out because he felt that he didn't have a win[.]"

On October 10, 1991, the trial court denied defendant's motion.

Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court failed to assure compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d)(134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)); (2) the trial court entered judgment on defendant's guilty plea without proper supporting factual basis; and (3) defendant was inadequately admonished concerning consecutive sentences and the withdrawal of guilty plea process.

Defendant captioned his pro se motion, "Motion for Reduction of Sentence," but his issues on appeal concern his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea. Although the State urges us to treat defendant's motion only as a motion to reduce defendant's sentence, it is clear that the purpose of defendant's pro se motion was also to challenge the entry of his guilty plea. (See People v. Velasco (1990), 197 Ill. App. 3d 589, 554 N.E.2d 1094, 144 Ill. Dec. 55.) We therefore treat defendant's motion as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Supreme Court Rule 604(d) sets forth the following procedural requirements which must be met upon receipt of a defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty:

"The trial court shall then determine whether the defendant is represented by counsel and if the defendant is indigent and desires counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel. If defendant is indigent, the trial court shall order a copy of the transcript * * * be furnished the defendant without cost. The defendant's attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate stating that the attorney has consulted with the defendant either by mail or in person to ascertain his contentions of error in the entry of the plea of guilty, has examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea of guilty, and has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defect in those proceedings." (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).)

Rule 604(d) "was designed to eliminate needless trips to the appellate court and to give the trial court an opportunity to consider the alleged errors and to make a record for the appellate court to consider on review in cases where defendant's claim is disallowed." ( People v. Wilk (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 93, 106, 529 N.E.2d 218, 223, 124 Ill. Dec. 398.) Recently, our supreme court in People v. Janes (Jan. 20, 1994), No. 73235, held that rule 604(d) requires strict compliance, and that the remedy for failure to strictly comply with each of 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.