{
  "id": 2938425,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL BROOKS, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brooks",
  "decision_date": "1973-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 44745",
  "first_page": "495",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 495"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 427,
    "char_count": 10002,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.826,
    "sha256": "e3bb3482138c007ac499dfd996019840cad185b2917430aa18d2b4c966751c4a",
    "simhash": "1:b082a58d21f7ceb7",
    "word_count": 1685
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:48.278665+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL BROOKS, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Michael Brooks, appeals from judgments of the circuit court of Cook County entered upon his pleas of guilty to criminal offenses charged in three indictments, and from the order of the circuit court denying his petition to withdraw those pleas of guilty. The first indictment, containing seventeen counts, charged defendant and two co-defendants with the offenses of murder, attempt murder and attempt armed robbery; the second, containing one count, charged defendant and a co-defendant with armed robbery, and the third, containing three counts, charged defendant with aggravated battery and attempt murder.\nDefendant contends first that the judgments must be reversed for the reason that the circuit court, prior to accepting the pleas of guilty, failed to determine that there was a factual basis for the pleas as required by Rule 402(c). (50 Ill.2d R. 402(c).) He contends further that the acceptance of the pleas of guilty was error because the court \u201cupon defendant\u2019s clear denial that he had committed the acts that constituted the elements of the crimes charged,\u201d had earlier refused to accept the pleas, and that it was only after undue pressure had been brought upon defendant by his counsel to admit the commission of the acts, in order to present a factual basis for the plea, and after undue pressure had been exerted upon him to plead guilty, that the guilty pleas were made.\nThe record shows that on the morning of March 19, 1970, defendant, represented by retained counsel, was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty. On defendant\u2019s motion he was examined by Dr. William H. Haines of the Behavior Clinic who made a diagnosis of \u201cSociopathic Personality Disturbance\u201d and stated that defendant \u201cknows the nature of the charge and is able to cooperate with his counsel.\u201d Defendant was then 17 years of age. On December 15, 1970, the cases were called for trial and defendant appeared with counsel who requested a \u201cpretrial conference on all of the indictments involving this defendant.\u201d The court explained to defendant that a conference had been requested and the reason for holding it, and told defendant that if the conference were held his dissatisfaction with the results could not be made the basis of a motion for substitution of judges. Defendant stated that he understood the court\u2019s admonitions and consented to the conference. Defendant\u2019s parents were present in court, and in response to the inquiry of defense counsel stated that they consented to the holding of the conference.\nLater that morning, in the presence of defendant and his parents, the court inquired of defense counsel whether he had explained to defendant the results of the conference. At the request of defense counsel the matter was put over to the afternoon in order to enable him to confer with defendant\u2019s older brother, who had not been present that morning. Upon court being reconvened counsel advised the court that defendant wished to withdraw his pleas of, not guilty and enter pleas of guilty to all three indictments. The court explained to defendant the nature of the charge in each count of each indictment and the possible penalties, and in each instance, in response to the court\u2019s specific inquiries, defendant stated that he understood the nature of each charge and the penalties which could be imposed. Defendant was advised, and stated that he understood, that if he pleaded guilty there would be no trial and that he thereby waived the right to trial by jury, and the right to be confronted with the witnesses. The following then ensued:\n\u201cTHE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because in fact you are guilty of the charges in each of these indictments that I have just read to you?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: Pardon me?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, sir. I\u2019m pleading guilty because I believe I\u2019ll be given time for something I did not do.\nTHE COURT: Are you saying that you are not in fact guilty of the charges in the indictment?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, sir; I\u2019m saying I\u2019m not guilty, but I\u2019m pleading guilty.\u201d\nThe court thereupon refused to accept the pleas of guilty and ordered the case to proceed to trial. In response to the court\u2019s inquiry, counsel stated that it would be a bench trial. Shortly thereafter defense counsel advised the court that he had just had a short conference with defendant and \u201capparently he didn\u2019t understand the import of the question that was raised.\u201d The following then ensued:\n\u201cTHE COURT: I just want to make sure you understand. Because I want for you to understand this. This is very important. I have read to you various charges in the three indictments.\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I understand that.\nTHE COURT: And I have asked you, and I want to make sure you understand what I have said. Are you pleading guilty because in fact you are guilty of the charges that I have read from each of these indictments?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Now, is that a voluntary statement? Has that been made by you, on your own, without.any pressure from anybody?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: You understand what it is I\u2019m saying to you and you understand what I\u2019m saying. Is that without pressure from anyone?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: And no one has sought to pressure you with respect to that, is that correct?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: All right. Do you understand, Michael, there has been a conference? And, at that conference, the Court indicated that if there is a plea to these charges, that on indictment 70 \u2014 677, that is, the one charging you with murder, the Court would impose a sentence of a minimum of twenty years and a maximum of fifty years. Do you understand that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: And on indictment 70 \u2014 740, which charges you with the offense of armed robbery of Julius Kowal, the Court would sentence you to two to four, a minimum of two and maximum of four to be concurrent with the sentence in 70 \u2014 677.\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: And also concurrent with the sentence that would be imposed under 70 \u2014 1465. Now, you understand that on 70 \u2014 1465, which is the one charging you with the Christmas Day aggravated battery,\u2014\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: \u2014 that the Court could sentence you to a minimum of four and maximum of eight. That would be concurrent, likewise, with the other sentences. Now, do you understand that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Now, other than the possible sentence that the Court has now indicated, which Mr. Starke has discussed with you and your mother and your brother and your father and the Court has told you, has there been any force, threats or promises made by anyone to induce you to plead guilty?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: This is your own voluntary and free act? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Is there any hesitation about that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: You have the right, you understand, to persist in your plea of not guilty or to plead guilty. You understand that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: All right. Knowing all the matters about which I have questioned you, do you voluntarily and knowingly persist in your plea of guilty to each of the charges in each of the indictments?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: All right. Let the record show that the plea of Michael Brooks, in each of these counts, in each of these indictments, will be accepted.\u201d\nIn addition to the foregoing the record shows affirmatively that prior to the taking of the pleas of guilty, defense counsel had discussed the effect of the pleas and the results of the conference with defendant\u2019s parents and older brother.\nFollowing acceptance of the pleas the court requested the State\u2019s Attorney to \u201ctell us what the facts are.\u201d Defense counsel and the State\u2019s Attorney entered into a stipulation which covers approximately four pages in the transcript and shows, beyond question, a factual basis for the pleas of guilty. The court heard testimony in aggravation and mitigation, and following statements by counsel, imposed sentence.\nOn March 18, 1971, represented by other counsel, defendant filed a petition to withdraw the pleas of guilty in which it is alleged that defendant was induced to plead guilty by the representations of his counsel which \u201cwere knowingly false or made without any basis of fact,\u201d that co-defendants would testify against him, that if found guilty he would receive a death penalty and that his family suggested that he plead guilty.\nThe circuit court heard the testimony of the defendant, his mother, and counsel who had represented him when the pleas of guilty were entered, and found that at the time of entering the pleas defendant understood the nature of the charges and the range of permissible sentences which would be imposed, and that there was a factual basis for each plea of guilty, and denied the petition.\nWe have considered defendant\u2019s arguments and conclude that they find no support whatsoever in the record. On the contrary the admonition of the court and defendant\u2019s responses to the court\u2019s specific questions demonstrate beyond question that defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty to the charges. An examination of the testimony adduced at the hearing on defendant\u2019s petition to withdraw the plea confirms that conclusion. The stipulation of facts sets forth in detail the time, place and nature of the offense and the fact of defendant\u2019s participation. The trial court clearly did not err in accepting the pleas of guilty and the judgments are affirmed.\nJudgments affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "HOWARD T. SAVAGE, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, and BERNARD CAREY, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (JAMES B. ZAGEL, Assistant Attorney General, and KENNETH L. GILLIS and SHARON HOPE GROSS-MAN, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 44745.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL BROOKS, Appellant.\nOpinion filed November 20, 1973.\nHOWARD T. SAVAGE, of Chicago, for appellant.\nWILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, and BERNARD CAREY, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (JAMES B. ZAGEL, Assistant Attorney General, and KENNETH L. GILLIS and SHARON HOPE GROSS-MAN, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0495-01",
  "first_page_order": 525,
  "last_page_order": 531
}