{ "id": 2864742, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Richard F. Ballheimer, Jr., Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ballheimer", "decision_date": "1967-03-29", "docket_number": "No. 39626", "first_page": "24", "last_page": "27", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 24" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2885558 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 Ill. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5252532 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/342/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 Ill. 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3333491 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/224/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ill.2d 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2703147 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/5/0058-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 317, "char_count": 5530, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.966835014007777e-07, "percentile": 0.9044969417135903 }, "sha256": "0cddfdcb48d6378546bfa897a002c685774920ee22aea0119b6d2290b1168279", "simhash": "1:eb98c229644e8cf1", "word_count": 950 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:03.944089+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Richard F. Ballheimer, Jr., Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Ward\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant on this writ of error challenges the adequacy of the admonitions given him by the trial court of Franklin County before it accepted his pleas of guilty to the criminal charges concerned.\nA constitutional question is involved in this cause, and the defendant, Richard F. Ballheimer, Jr., appears pro se.\nThe defendant was indicted for forgery of a check in the amount of $40 and on November 20, 1962, through his attorney, the defendant moved that the not-guilty plea which theretofore had been entered be withdrawn and a plea of guilty substituted. The court advised the defendant of his right to a trial by jury and of the People\u2019s burden of proof. The court then stated that if the defendant were found guilty that \u201cthe court would have to sentence you in accordance with the statute.\u201d The defendant affirmed that he wished to plead guilty and the court accepted the plea and placed the defendant on probation for a period of two years. One of the terms of probation was that the defendant serve the first six months of such probationary period in the county jail.\nIn January, 1963, the defendant escaped from the custody of the sheriff and committed a theft of $263.\nHe was taken into custody and later waived indictment, and the State\u2019s attorney filed a criminal information charging him with theft.\nOn January 29, 1963, the defendant, on arraignment, stated that he wished to enter a plea of guilty to the information. The trial court again advised defendant of his right to a trial by jury and the People\u2019s burden of proof and informed him that if the People proved his guilt he \u201cwould be sentenced according to the law.\u201d The defendant persisted in his plea of guilty and the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him to a minimum term of three years and a maximum term of six years. The court further held that the judgment of conviction for the second offense operated to revoke the probation granted on the earlier conviction for forgery. The court entered a revocation order and sentenced the defendant for the same term he had imposed on the plea of guilty to the charge of theft and ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently.\nThe statements that \u201cthe court would have to sentence you in accordance with the statute\u201d and that the defendant \u201cwould be sentenced according to the law\u201d were the only expressions by the court on the question of the possible consequences of the defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty.\nThe defendant argues that the admonitions by the trial court were insufficient and that the defendant should have been advised explicitly of the possible punishments he might receive by his pleas of guilty.\nThe expressions by the trial court were inadequate. The decision to plead guilty to a criminal accusation is a grave personal judgment and an accused should not be allowed to enter such a plea unless the defendant has a full comprehension of the possible consequences of so pleading.\nOur statute governing at the time of the pleas concerned provided: \u201cIn cases where the party pleads \u2018guilty\u2019 such plea shall not be entered until the court shall have fully explained to the accused the consequences of entering such plea * * (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 38, par. 732.) Rule 26(3) (now Rule 401(b)) of this court then provided that the trial court could not accept a plea of guilty unless it found that the accused understood the consequences of such a plea and comprehended \u201cthe punishment * * * fixed by law.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap, no, par 101.26.\nIllustrating the continuing concern of our legislature on this question we point out that the present pertinent statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 115 \u2014 2(a) (2)) provides that a plea of guilty may be accepted only when \u201cthe court has informed the defendant of the consequences of his plea and of the maximum penalty provided by law which may be imposed upon acceptance of such plea.\u201d\nThis court has consistently held that the record must disclose that the consequences of a plea of guilty have been fully explained to an accused before we will permit such a plea to stand.\nWe said, in reversing the judgment and remanding, following an insufficient admonition by the trial court in People v. Washington, 5 Ill.2d 58, 60: \u201cThroughout the history of the administration of criminal justice in this jurisdiction, it has been a strict requirement of our law that in each conviction of a crime upon a plea of guilty, the record must show that before the entry of the plea the court fully explained its consequences to -the defendant and that the explanation was understandingly received.\u201d We said at page 62: \u201cSimilarly, defendant was never informed of the punishment fixed by law for the crime charged nor was he apprised of the limits of the punishment he might receive as a result of his plea, an omission which has long been held to constitute error. (Krolage v. People, 224 Ill. 456; People v. Moore, 342 Ill. 316.)\u201d See also, People v. Mackey, 33 Ill.2d 436.\nThe circuit court is directed to vacate the order which revoked the defendant\u2019s probation, and the judgments of the court on the defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Ward" } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard F. Ballheimer, pro se for plaintiff in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 39626.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Richard F. Ballheimer, Jr., Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed March 29, 1967.\nRichard F. Ballheimer, pro se for plaintiff in error." }, "file_name": "0024-01", "first_page_order": 24, "last_page_order": 27 }