{
  "id": 2855160,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ules Brown, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 55435",
  "first_page": "151",
  "last_page": "152",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 151"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3102,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "sha256": "4f2bfcf5323338701000dd415804a1efcff3319e74ba310be1b7009daffc3b6c",
    "simhash": "1:8b262bf47fdd2433",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:56:16.526311+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. Ules Brown, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nWhen defendant\u2019s case was in this court last year, we felt obliged to dismiss the appeal on the ground that we lacked jurisdiction by virtue of Supreme Court Rule 606(a), a purported notice of appeal having been filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Rule 606(b), and without the presentation of a petition for leave of this court to file a late notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 606(c). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, par. 606.\nThe case is now before us again on reversal by the Illinois Supreme Court (No. 45085, March 20, 1973) which held that we had abused our discretion in not considering as a proper Rule 606(c) petition, defendant\u2019s alternative request contained in his petition for rehearing that his rehearing \u201cpetition be considered as a late notice of appeal nunc pro tunc, to the date of the plea of guilty.\u201d We therefore do so, and grant leave to appeal.\nIn furtherance thereof, and in accordance with Rule 606(c), we hereby order the clerk of this court to transmit a copy of defendant\u2019s petition for rehearing filed herein on February 22, 1972, to the clerk of the circuit court for filing as of October 17, 1969, and with direction that it be considered as the notice of appeal in this case. The resulting lateness in filing the record, briefs and excerpts is hereby excused.\nTurning to the appeal as presented in defendant\u2019s briefs, there is only one point raised: that his conviction should not stand because the court had not adequately advised him of his rights when he pleaded guilty.\nAs our opinion, we adopt the following concise statement of the case contained in the dissenting opinion filed by Mr. Chief Justice Underwood:\n\u201cIt is abundantly clear from the record that defendant and his counsel had negotiated this plea of guilty as a means of disposing of eight armed-robbery charges then pending against him. The 3-5 year sentence then, imposed had been agreed upon by defendant, his counsel and the State\u2019s Attorney. There is no suggestion made to us that defendant is not guilty, that he was in any way misled as to the offense to which he was pleading guilty or the sentence which would be recommended. The recommended sen- \u25a0 tence was imposed, and it is not suggested to be excessive. In short, it is entirely clear that no element of unfairness to defendant in the conduct or completion of the plea-negotiation proceedings is alleged to exist.\nIt is undisputed that defendant was properly admonished as to the consequences of his guilty plea and that he was apprised of his right to appeal notwithstanding that plea.\u201d\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER; P. J., and LORENZ, J\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (James N. Gramenos, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and George Pappas, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ules Brown, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 55435;\nFirst District (5th Division)\nMay 11, 1973.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (James N. Gramenos, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and George Pappas, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0151-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 172
}