{
  "id": 5394615,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Grimes, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Grimes",
  "decision_date": "1973-04-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 72-162",
  "first_page": "1017",
  "last_page": "1018",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. App. 3d 1017"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3601,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.141001811384643e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2669777272729028
    },
    "sha256": "a0f02f285ea159249efb8436fadd23511fb2eb1b4684983d9c2f06b8f1e054a1",
    "simhash": "1:1305e0acfcaeccda",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:00.166365+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. Roy Grimes, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant appeals from an order denying relief, after an evidentiary hearing, under an amended post conviction petition.\nThe single issue is whether, in light of a claimed \u201cunfulfilled promise\u201d by the prosecutor, the defendant\u2019s sentence to the penitentiary violated his constitutional rights to due process.\nDuring the hearing on the amended post conviction petition, it was established that the defendant was arrested for burglary; that, in the course of interrogation, the police promised to recommend probation for the defendant if, in return, he would identify his accomplice, give a statement and testify against his companion. Defendant identified his cohort and gave a statement. Later he and his accomplice were indicted. The public defender, appointed to represent defendant, verified the State\u2019s agreement to recommend probation under the terms above.\nOn two occasions defendant appeared, ready to testify against the co-defendant: on each occasion, the co-defendant (aware of the arrangement between the State and the defendant) had the case continued. On the next date set for trial, August 28, 1969, the defendant failed to appear. The case was continued to September 8, 1969. The public defender wrote to the defendant at his last known address, informing him of the new date, but the letter was returned unclaimed. On September 8, 1969, defendant\u2019s bond was forfeited for failure to appear, the co-defendant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of 2 to 5 years in the penitentiary. On that date, the State notified defendant\u2019s counsel of its decision to withdraw the promise of probation recommendation.\nLate in November, 1969, defense counsel was informed that the defendant had been incarcerated in Cook County since August 9, 1969. Brought back to Du Page County, defendant was informed that the State had withdrawn any prior promise to recommend probation and, instead, would now recommend a sentence of 2 to 5 years. (Defendant alleged that his counsel then advised him to plead guilty, suggesting that he would arrange for the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney and the interrogating police officer to be present, anticipating that, after the plea, special consideration might be urged upon the court. Defense counsel denied that any conditions were suggested but stated that he had advised defendant to plead guilty and accept the State\u2019s recommended sentence.) On December 11, 1969, defendant entered his plea and was sentencd to a term of 2 to 5 years.\nThe record clearly indicates that the defendant admitted full knowledge of the withdrawal of the State\u2019s promise and of the intended sentence recommendation, prior to the entry of his plea. During a thorough admonishment by the court, defendant explicitly voiced his understanding that the State would recommend a 2 to 5 year sentence and unequivocally stated that no other promises had been made him.\nFrom the evidence herein, we conclude that the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was not made in reliance upon any prior promise by the State but, rather, was entered voluntarily, intelligently and understandingly.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nSEIDENFELD and ABRAHAMSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul Bradley, of Defender Project, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "William V. Hopf, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton, (Ralph J. Gust, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Grimes, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 72-162;\nSecond District\nApril 17, 1973.\nPaul Bradley, of Defender Project, of Elgin, for appellant.\nWilliam V. Hopf, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton, (Ralph J. Gust, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1017-01",
  "first_page_order": 1041,
  "last_page_order": 1042
}