{ "id": 2856169, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome Harris, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Harris", "decision_date": "1973-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 72-61", "first_page": "337", "last_page": "338", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 337" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "294 N.E.2d 107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill.App.3d 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5391081 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/10/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill.2d 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2924359 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 N.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 Ill.2d 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2908254 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/48/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771759 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0238-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 249, "char_count": 3317, "ocr_confidence": 0.739, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08512368867837468 }, "sha256": "fa6b4c66f59bceec3f8988669b3e6cc44de75778ec7b0c66c4d6abf5bbeed354", "simhash": "1:246df39ffb16bee2", "word_count": 560 }, "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. Jerome Harris, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JONES\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn February 25, 1970 defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of armed robbery and was given a sentence of not less than two nor more than five years in prison. The sole issue defendant raises on appeal is whether the court\u2019s admonitions as to the possible sentence were complete. Those admonitions were:\n\u201cThe Court: * * * You must also understand, under your plea of guilty, the Court can adjudge you guilty of the crime of Armed Robbery as alleged in the indictment and you can be sentenced for any indeterminate term of a minimum of not less than two years.\nDefendant: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: And the Court can fix the minimum and maximum term of such sentence. Now, knowing your legal rights, do you still persist in your plea of guilty?\nDefendant: Yes, sir.\nMr. Rice (State\u2019s Attorney): Your Honor, we would ask, * * * there was a case reversed on whether the subject understood indeterminate.\nThe Court: Do you understand what indeterminate means, Mr. Harris?\nD\u00e9fendant: No.\nThe Court: All right. I have stated to you \u2018indeterminate\u2019. This means I can sentence you to any maximum length of time that I want to. Does that explain it to you?\nDefendant: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Is there any further explanation needed by you?\nDefendant: No.\nThe Court: I am only talking about the maximum term, do you understand that?\nDefendant: Yes, sir, I do.\u201d\nThe basis of defendant\u2019s argument is that defendant did not realize at the time he entered his plea that he faced a possibility of receiving a minimum sentence of more than two years and accordingly his plea was not knowingly and intelligently given as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238.\nWe must disagree with defendant\u2019s argument. The record is totally devoid of anything that would indicate defendant did not fully understand the possible sentence that could be imposed. The defendant in fact received the minimum permissible term of imprisonment for the crime of which he was convicted. We can find no basis for his complaint. Admittedly he was told that he could be sentenced for any indeterminate term and that the minimum would be not less than two years. Defendant then stated he did not understand the meaning of \u201cindeterminate\u201d but after an explanation he stated that he then understood it and that further explanation was unnecessary. The procedure followed by the court was in compliance with pertinent portions of Supreme Court Rule 401(b) (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1969, ch. 110A, sec. 401(b)) governing receipt of pleas of guilty at the time of defendant\u2019s plea. See People v. Mendoza, 48 Ill.2d 371, 270 N.E.2d 30.\nThe sentence imposed upon defendant was within the limits prescribed by law and does not require adjustment on appeal in accordance with tire Rules stated in People v. Chupich, 53 Ill.2d 572, 295 N.E.2d 1, and People v. Shadowens, 10 Ill.App.3d 450, 294 N.E.2d 107.\nAffirmed.\nG. MORAN, P. J., and CREES, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JONES" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kenneth L. Jones, of Defender Project, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "Robert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville, (James W. Jerz and Edward N. Morris, of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome Harris, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 72-61;\nFifth District\nJune 5, 1973.\nKenneth L. Jones, of Defender Project, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nRobert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville, (James W. Jerz and Edward N. Morris, of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0337-01", "first_page_order": 357, "last_page_order": 358 }