{
  "id": 5342709,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William B. Hayes, Jr., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hayes",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 11838",
  "first_page": "959",
  "last_page": "960",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 3d 959"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "275 N.E.2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill.2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2910030
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/49/0504-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 261,
    "char_count": 3405,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15816346821764513
    },
    "sha256": "da18e1805131c150794fbfcb1069b5739355a74d807f541dfcf2e8c96ff12004",
    "simhash": "1:d059dfde634c28fa",
    "word_count": 555
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:28.394088+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. William B. Hayes, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was convicted upon his negotiated pleas of guilty to the offenses of resisting arrest and reckless driving. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court, which did not participate in the plea negotiations, denied defendant\u2019s motion for probation and sentenced defendant to a term of 20 days upon the charge of resisting arrest and a fine of $250 upon the charge of reckless driving. The sentences imposed were those recommended by the State\u2019s Attorney under the terms of the plea negotiations. The fine has been paid. Defendant appeals the denial of probation.\nIn March, 1971, defendant was indicted for aggravated battery upon one Barden, a police officer, for resisting arrest by one Cook, a police officer, and for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The several offenses occurred as a series on one date. Following an initial plea of not guilty, defendant then procured two continuances of the trial setting and obtained discovery of witnesses and police reports.\nOn the date of trial defendant\u2019s pleas of not guilty were withdrawn and pleas of guilty entered. The cause was continued for sentence to December 21, 1971, and on that date defendant, having obtained other counsel, moved for a continuance of 60 days for sentence, asserting purported matters of family business. A continuance of 30 days was granted to January 4, 1972. On December 29, defendant filed a petition for probation. The report of the probation officer expressed skepticism that defendant would abide the rules, but did recommend probation.\nHere, defendant argues that the court summarily denied probation because defendant had negotiated a plea and that such denial was an abuse of discretion.\nWe find that the court\u2019s admonition on the taking of the respective pleas of guilty was full and that a factual basis for each plea is clearly established in the record from the statements of defendant in open court. In denying probation, the court stated that all the facts and circumstances of the case were taken into consideration. The record shows that defendant had prior convictions for reckless driving, one of which included a charge of fleeing a police officer.\nThe review of the trial court\u2019s denial of probation is to determine whether the trial court did, in fact, exercise discretion or whether it acted in an arbitrary manner. People v. Saiken, 49 Ill.2d 504, 275 N.E.2d 381.\nIn People ex rel. Ward v. Moran (S.Ct. No. 45197, June 1973), (Ill.) (N.E.2d), the court approved language that probation should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in a better position to weigh the interests of society and the individual in each case. We have examined the evidence offered at the probation hearing, as well as the other matters of record. Under the authority of Supreme Court Rule 23 we- find that there has been no abuse of discretion.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nCRAVEN, P. J., and SMITH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "N. E. Hutson, of Monticello, for appellant.",
      "Lawrence E. Johnson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana, (Thomas L. Knight, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, and Gary C. Duerkoop, Senior Law Student, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William B. Hayes, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 11838;\nFourth District \u2014\nSeptember 10, 1973.\nRehearing denied October 1, 1973.\nN. E. Hutson, of Monticello, for appellant.\nLawrence E. Johnson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana, (Thomas L. Knight, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, and Gary C. Duerkoop, Senior Law Student, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0959-01",
  "first_page_order": 981,
  "last_page_order": 982
}