{ "id": 2966555, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. ROBERT L. COPE, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Cope", "decision_date": "1973-06-01", "docket_number": "No. 44729", "first_page": "226", "last_page": "229", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 226" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "386 U.S. 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 274, "char_count": 4187, "ocr_confidence": 0.883, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08, "percentile": 0.4121861930946553 }, "sha256": "bdae0fada2a214a737354ccf179877a3cbf0578de1bffc80556e8777e4afc08c", "simhash": "1:1731bac1235d68fa", "word_count": 713 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:58.412914+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. ROBERT L. COPE, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER CURIAM:\nThe defendant was tried by jury and convicted of the crime of burglary, and thereafter he entered pleas of guilty to two other charges of burglary and was sentenced to concurrent terms of not less than three nor more than ten years on the three convictions. His post-conviction petition was denied without hearing evidence, and he has appealed. We granted counsel\u2019s motion for leave to withdraw after he submitted a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738. No pro se brief has been filed, although defendant was granted leave to do so.\nAfter interviewing the defendant and reading the transcript, appointed counsel elected to stand on the pro se petition. That petition alleged that evidence obtained in an illegal search was used against the defendant; that the indictments did not specify the time of day the offenses were committed; and that defendant was under the influence of drugs at the time of his convictions and did not understand the admonishment of the court.\nAn affidavit by the attorney who had represented the defendant at the time he entered guilty pleas stated that the defendant wanted to so plead because the evidence would probably have convicted him and that he wanted to be sure and receive concurrent sentences. Such affidavit also stated that defendant did not appear to be under the influence of drugs and appeared to be fully aware of the consequences of his pleas. The transcript of the proceedings shows that defendant was admonished adequately of his right to a jury trial and the consequences of his pleas. Defendant stated that he was guilty of one burglary but only \u201cpartially guilty\u201d of the other, since he had not participated in the burglary itself, but had bought the stolen property. Defendant stated that he should have been charged with possession of stolen goods but agreed to a plea of guilty to burglary, because it was \u201cthe same difference.\u201d In our opinion the trial court did not violate defendant\u2019s constitutional rights by accepting his pleas of guilty.\nThe statement concerning the illegal search was entirely unsupported by any facts or affidavits, and it was brought out at the post-conviction hearing that a warrant had been issued for defendant\u2019s arrest, although the warrant was not in the physical possession of the officer who had arrested him. This allegation was insufficient to require a hearing.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER CURIAM:" }, { "text": "MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER,\ndissenting:\nIn my opinion a plea of guilty may not be accepted when the defendant protests that he is not guilty, and for that reason I cannot concur in the court\u2019s disposition of this matter.\nIn this case, when he was asked if he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, his response was, \u201cJust partially guilty on the one.\u201d The following colloquy then took place:\n\u201cTHE COURT: When you say partially guilty, what do you mean by that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: I didn\u2019t commit the burglary but I bought the checks and check writer.\nTHE COURT: You didn\u2019t commit the burglary but did what?\nTHE DEFENDANT: I bought the checks and check machine that come from it.\nTHE COURT: Did you aid in the commission of that burglary?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, I did not.\n* * *\nTHE COURT: Why are you pleading guilty to that? Because, as counsel states, that the chances of going to trial, your chances as you see it are slim, as I gather it?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, the charge is burglary. I am not guilty of the burglary but I am guilty of having possession of some of the items. I didn\u2019t commit the burglary myself.\nTHE COURT: Do you still wish to plead guilty to that indictment? Is that right?\nTHE DEFENDANT: It could be the same difference. It is just the charge on the indictment, isn\u2019t proper, it should be possession of stolen property.\n* * *\nTHE COURT: Considering the totality of the circumstances, I will accept your pleas on both indictments, 1114 and 1115.\u201d\nMR. JUSTICE WARD joins in this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER," } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert L. Cope, pro se, appellant.", "No appearance for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 44729.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. ROBERT L. COPE, Appellant.\nOrder entered June 1, 1973.\nSCHAEFER and WARD, JJ., dissenting.\nRobert L. Cope, pro se, appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee." }, "file_name": "0226-01", "first_page_order": 238, "last_page_order": 241 }