{ "id": 1588961, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Howard, Junior, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Howard", "decision_date": "1969-09-17", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,721", "first_page": "466", "last_page": "471", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "114 Ill. App. 2d 466" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "211 NE2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill 2d 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2882811 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 NE2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill2d 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2736703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 NE2d 312", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill2d 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5357375 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 NE2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill2d 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2864742 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S Ct 1166", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6174781 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/394/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "248 NE2d 92", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill2d 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2847854 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 US 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 436, "char_count": 6981, "ocr_confidence": 0.626, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.059523933634740865 }, "sha256": "fe83cf5ef671446c2ea27e9d5fba5dc8646bfd2d760b39b1ed32ef48a6560ed5", "simhash": "1:4431a6b8e8038c90", "word_count": 1203 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:40:03.086541+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Howard, Junior, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nCRIME CHARGED\nRobbery. Ill Rev Stats (1965), c 38, \u00a7 18-1.\nJUDGMENT\nOn a plea of guilty, defendant was sentenced to a term of 3 to 10 years, concurrent with his sentence under a separate indictment for deviate sexual assault.\nPROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL\nOn May 7, 1969, the attorney appointed by the trial court to represent defendant on appeal, filed a petition for leave to withdraw from the case on the ground that he was unable to find any legal points which were arguable on their merits. He also filed a brief, covering possible issues, in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 US 738. Copies of the petition and brief were served by mail upon defendant in the penitentiary on April 29,1969, and on May 12 he was notified that he might have until July 11, 1969, to file any points he might choose in support of his appeal. Defendant has filed nothing additional.\nCounsel\u2019s brief covers the possible point that the trial court \u201cdid not fully admonish the defendant as to the significance and consequences of his change of plea from not guilty to guilty.\u201d\nTHE RECORD IN THE TRIAL COURT\nShortly after indictment, defendant was released on bail. He was therefore in a position to participate freely in the preparation of his defense by his privately retained attorney, and it appears that he did so.\nOn August 14, 1967, while the case was awaiting trial, defendant\u2019s counsel presented a petition requesting the court to conduct a hearing to determine defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial. The court then proceeded with such a hearing and a jury was impanelled for the purpose. Testimony and arguments of counsel were heard, and the jury returned a verdict finding defendant competent, upon which verdict judgment was entered.\nDefendant was rearraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. He was then furnished with the names and addresses of the State\u2019s witnesses.\nAfter repeated continuances, the case came up for trial on March 14, 1968, at which time the following colloquy took place:\nDEFENSE ATTORNEY: \u201cIf your Honor please, this is the defendant Jack Howard, Junior, who is charged with the offense of robbery in Indictment No. 67-715. Judge, at this time Jack Howard, Jr. after having had a conference with me advises me that he wishes to withdraw his plea of not guilty to Indictment No. 67-715 and to enter a plea of guilty. I have advised him of the consequences of his plea, your Honor.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cMr. Howard, you have heard Mr. Blair advise me that at this time you are changing your plea of not guilty on this indictment, Indictment No. 67-715, to one of guilty. Is that correct, sir?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cDo you know that when you plead guilty you automatically waive your right to a trial ?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cEither by me or twelve people in that box. Do you know that, sir?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cAnd knowing that do you still persist in your guilty plea ?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cBefore accepting your plea it is my duty to advise you that on your plea of guilty to this indictment charging you with robbery you may be sentenced to the penitentiary for any term of years not less than one and not more than twenty years. Do you understand that, sir?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cAnd knowing that do you still persist in your guilty plea ?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes.\u201d\nThereupon, the court found defendant guilty and entered judgment. At a hearing in mitigation and aggravation, the facts of the robbery were stipulated, including the fact that while defendant was dragging the woman victim into a gangway with his hand over her mouth, he told her to shut up or he would kill her. In mitigation, it was pointed out that defendant was 18 years old. Sentence was then imposed.\nTo the point raised in defense counsel\u2019s brief, the following are pertinent:\nThe Code of Criminal Procedure, section 115-2 (Ill Rev Stats (1967), c 38, \u00a7 115-2):\nPleas of Guilty, (a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty may be accepted when:\n(1) The defendant* enters a plea of guilty in open court;\n(2) The 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.\nSupreme Court Rule 401 (b) (36 Ill2d 167; Ill Rev Stats (1967), c 110A, \u00a7 401 (b)) :\n(b) Procedure on Plea or Waiver. The court shall not permit a plea of guilty or waiver of indictment or of counsel by any person accused of a crime for which, upon conviction, the punishment may be imprisonment in the penitentiary, unless the court finds from proceedings had in open court at the time waiver is sought to be made or plea of guilty entered, or both, as the case may be, that the accused understands . . . the nature of the charge against him, and the consequences thereof if found guilty, .... The inquiries of the court, and the answers of the accused to determine whether he . . . comprehends the nature of the crime with which he is charged and the punishment thereof fixed by law, shall be taken and transcribed and filed in the case. . . .\nA number of cases have considered these requirements. See People v. Mims, 42 Ill2d 441, 248 NE2d 92 (citing McCarthy v. United States, 89 S Ct 1166); People v. Ballheimer, 37 Ill2d 24, 224 NE2d 811; People v. Kontopoulos, 26 Ill2d 388, 390, 186 NE2d 312; and People v. Doyle, 20 Ill2d 163, 169 NE2d 250.\nIn the Mims opinion, the court expressed our feeling about the instant case when it said:\nAfter advising the defendant that a change of plea would waive a jury trial, and describing the range of potential sentences, the trial judge asked: \u201cDo you persist in your plea of guilty?\u201d Nothing before us suggests that the defendant\u2019s affirmative response to this question was unintended or in any way equivocal.\nWe conclude that there was a full compliance, on the part of the court, with the necessary questioning of this defendant as called for by the statute, the rule and the cases. The point raised is not arguable on its merits within the mandate of Anders, supra.\nIn addition to considering the brief filed, we have made \u201ca full examination of all the proceedings\u201d as required by Anders. A point frequently raised in this court \u2014 that the punishment is excessive \u2014 is unavailable to this defendant, in our opinion. People v. Taylor, 33 Ill 2d 417, 424, 211 NE2d 673.\nWe find, therefore, that there are no legal points \u201carguable on their merits,\u201d and that the appeal is \u201cwholly frivolous.\u201d See Anders, supra.\nDefendant\u2019s attorney is given leave to withdraw, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER, P. J. and LEIGHTON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Howard, Junior, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,721.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nSeptember 17, 1969.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0466-01", "first_page_order": 472, "last_page_order": 477 }