{
  "id": 2475665,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert N. Ballard, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ballard",
  "decision_date": "1971-06-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 55030",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "133 Ill. App. 2d 303"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 N.E.2d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill.App.2d 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1598870
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/105/0014-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3703,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3049866999967952
    },
    "sha256": "b567a99900819dc6f3d82c20aa2330fe24f46bb2374d1bb4e575c7e53df09fe7",
    "simhash": "1:b091b088168be6b7",
    "word_count": 600
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:15.946523+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert N. Ballard, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Ballard pleaded guilty to indictments charging him with burglary and violation of probation and was sentenced to from two to four years on each offense, the sentences to run concurrently. He now claims that he was denied due process of law in that his pleas of guilty were compelled by the trial court\u2019s indication it would deny defendant\u2019s motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence in the violation of probation hearing.\nWe affirm.\nOn July 25, 1969, defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of unlawful use of weapons and was placed on three years probation. On February 18, 1970, defendant was brought to trial under two indictments, one charging him with burglary and a second with violation of probation, the basis of which was the burglary indictment.\nWhen the case was called for trial, defendant\u2019s counsel indicated that he wished to be heard on motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence. At that point, the defendant\u2019s lawyer and the State\u2019s Attorney entered into a dialogue on the availability of motions to suppress evidence in a hearing to revoke probation. When the court entered the discussion, the State\u2019s Attorney asked the court to pass the case so that he might review his file and \u201cinform counsel of what premise we are going on to violate the defendant\u2019s probation.\u201d\nWhen the case was called again, defendant informed the court that he wished to change his pleas from not guilty to guilty. After admonishing the defendant, the court accepted the plea of guilty to burglary and sentenced defendant. Defendant was also admonished as to the plea of guilty to violation of probation, and the court accepted that plea and sentenced defendant.\nDefendant now attacks the validity of these pleas by asserting that they were coerced by the judge\u2019s refusal to hear defendant\u2019s motions to suppress.\nDefendant\u2019s argument rests on two bases \u2014 first, that the judge would have proceeded to hear the probation violation prior to the burglary charge, and second, that the judge would have denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence when the burglary charge was heard.\nA careful examination of the record shows both of these bases to be without merit. The judge gave no indication that he would hear the violation of probation charge first. In fact, after defendant pleaded guilty, the burglary charge was considered prior to the violation of probation. Furthermore, the court was under no duty to hear the burglary charge first. People v. Smith (1969), 105 Ill.App.2d 14, 245 N.E.2d 13. The court there stated at page 17:\n\u201cThe judge did not abuse his discretion in proceeding on the probation hearing before trying the robbery case. A defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to have a probation revocation hearing delayed until a trial is had on a criminal offense alleged to have been committed by him during the period of probation.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s assumption that the trial court would have denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence when hearing the burglary charge is completely without factual support. Nowhere does the judge\u2019s language even suggest such an intent on the part of the court.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMcNAMARA, P. J., and DEMPSEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Harold A. Cowen, Ronald P. Katz, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert N. Ballard, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 55030;\nFirst District\nJune 3, 1971.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Harold A. Cowen, Ronald P. Katz, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 327
}