{
  "id": 5472874,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELLIS HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Henderson",
  "decision_date": "1982-03-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 17328",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "64",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 3d 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "317 N.E.2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "562"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 2d 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2952306
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "192"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/58/0187-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 3821,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.91,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.7189078829503834e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3587946633182089
    },
    "sha256": "913a50d5a34fa20ba4cebe4de12fb3bc098c76976b8a45b98796fbc36e3b59de",
    "simhash": "1:277b14ec2806ce36",
    "word_count": 611
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:33.067215+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. ELLIS HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 20, 1981, in the circuit court of Champaign County, defendant, Ellis Henderson, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of driving while a license or permit is suspended or revoked. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 95*2, par. 6 \u2014 303.) Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a period of 7 months\u2019 imprisonment. On appeal, defendant maintains his guilty plea must be vacated, because the court violated Supreme Court Rule 402 by simultaneously addressing all defendants who intended to plead guilty. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 402.\nAt the hearing, the trial court admonished all defendants who wished to plead guilty of the consequences of their pleas; their rights to a jury trial; the nature of a jury trial; and the right of each defendant to testify on his own behalf. The court then directed admonitions personally to each individual defendant.\nThe court personally informed defendant of the nature of the charge and the minimum and maximum sentence which could be imposed. He then asked defendant if he wished to plead guilty or not guilty. The court further questioned whether defendant understood what had been explained, and whether he had any questions concerning the rights he was offering to give up. From a thorough reading of the record, it appears the trial court made considerable effort to determine whether the plea was voluntary, and whether defendant understood the implications of his plea.\nAt the sentencing hearing on May 1,1981, defendant\u2019s attorney made a motion to withdraw as counsel. That motion was denied. A presentence report was submitted together with defendant\u2019s driving record. The report indicated defendant had prior felony convictions, and since being released on parole in 1978, he had seven prior traffic convictions.\nDefendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea alleging that he did not \u201cknowingly, intelligently or voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial, nor did [he] fully understand or comprehend the admonitions of the court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402 at the time of the entry of the plea.\u201d At the hearing on the motion, defendant stated he did not receive effective assistance of counsel regarding the possible sentences available to the court. That motion was denied, and the court specifically found that defendant did understand the nature of the charge and the possible penalties.\nSupreme Court Rule 402 requires \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d with its provisions (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 402). In People v. Krantz (1974), 58 Ill. 2d 187, 317 N.E.2d 559, the court noted that literal compliance was not required, and the entire record could be considered in determining whether the accused understood the nature of the charge. 58 Ill. 2d 187,192, 317 N.E.2d 559, 562.\nDefendant argues the court violated Rule 402 by failing to address him individually concerning his basic rights. However, when the court personally addressed defendant, he was informed of the nature of the charge and the possible penalties. Defendant indicated he understood these admonitions, as well as those previously given by the court. It appears the court was in \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d with the rule, and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the guilty plea.\nThe decision of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nWEBBER and TRAPP, JJ\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and James G. Woodward, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Robert J. Riderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELLIS HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 17328\nOpinion filed March 3, 1982.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and James G. Woodward, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Robert J. Riderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 86
}