{
  "id": 3571061,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES A. RAKES II, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rakes",
  "decision_date": "1986-08-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201485\u20140683",
  "first_page": "657",
  "last_page": "659",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 3d 657"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "371 N.E.2d 331",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3408524
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/55/0803-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 N.E.2d 1254",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5809512
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/68/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "434 N.E.2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 698",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5473726
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/105/0698-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill. App. 3d 1153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5605,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.785,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.10107558394331098
    },
    "sha256": "061b9f323086e78e01fbe74c721adc5f17c4e3014d4effacafa2b39224654eee",
    "simhash": "1:bb42793dc30f853d",
    "word_count": 883
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:35:17.515999+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. JAMES A. RAKES II, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPursuant to a plea agreement, the court dismissed the theft charge against the defendant, James Rakes; accepted his guilty plea to residential burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, pars. 16 \u2014 1(a)(1), 19 \u2014 3(a)); and sentenced the defendant to a seven-year term of imprisonment. Subsequently, the court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant appeals.\nOn June 20, 1984, the defendant informed Judge John Michella that he had actively participated in plea negotiations and that no promises or threats had induced him to freely and voluntarily tender his guilty plea to residential burglary in exchange for the State\u2019s nolle prosequi of the theft charge and recommended stay of mittimus for the proposed seven-year term of imprisonment. In conjunction with the Supreme Court Rule 402(a) admonitions (87 Ill. 2d R. 402(a)), the court informed the defendant that his prior convictions elevated the instant offense to a Class X felony punishable by 6 to 30 years of imprisonment. (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 5\u20143(c)(8).) The factual basis for the defendant\u2019s voluntary plea consisted of his admission that with intent to commit a theft he broke a window and entered Officer John Fitts\u2019 residence. The court accepted the defendant\u2019s oral and written guilty plea, and at the defendant\u2019s request, immediately proceeded to sentencing. After again noting the defendant\u2019s two prior burglary convictions, the court concurred with the agreement and sentenced the defendant to seven years of imprisonment.\nOn June 27, 1984, this court reversed one of the defendant\u2019s prior burglary convictions. (People v. Rakes (1984), 124 Ill. App. 3d 1153 (unpublished Rule 23 order).) Judge Michella later took judicial notice of the reversed conviction and reduced the defendant\u2019s mandatory supervised release period to two years. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate his judgment of conviction. Therein, the defendant alleged that he pleaded to the offense in reliance on the belief that he was subject to a Class X penalty; and that because his burglary conviction was reversed he was no longer subject to that penalty.\nAt the hearing on the defendant\u2019s motion, Judge Wayne Dyer took judicial notice of the defendant\u2019s reversed burglary conviction; and the defendant testified that when he pleaded he knew that his burglary conviction could be reversed in his pending appeal. The court acknowledged that at sentencing the defendant was subject to Class X treatment and that the reversal would have affected the penalty range. The court found the defendant knowledgeable about criminal penalties, his appeal, and appellate procedure. The court further found that with awareness of the possibility of reversal, the defendant plea bargained with complete factual knowledge and voluntarily and understandably pleaded to the offense. The court ruled that the sentence imposed was well within the lower third of the applicable penalty range; and that neither fundamental fairness nor the circumstances of the plea entitled the defendant to abrogate the plea agreement upon which his sentence was based.\nThe defendant argues on appeal that his reversed burglary conviction entitles him to withdraw his guilty plea and be resentenced. The State responds that the reversal is of no consequence. The defendant replies that the possibility of longer imprisonment affected his decision to plead and that Judge Michella, who accepted his plea, was influenced by his subsequently reversed conviction. Therefore, the defendant suggests that due process mandates that his sentence be reexamined.\nWe acknowledge that the defendant may be entitled to re-sentencing if the court sentences the accused by considering a prior conviction that was later reversed. (People v. Reynolds (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 698, 434 N.E.2d 776.) However, as part of a plea agreement, the defendant implicitly accepts his sentence and admits that it is justified and fair. People v. Stacey (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 261, 369 N.E.2d 1254.\nThe defendant concedes that when he pleaded he was appropriately admonished for the instant Class X offense. The defendant was aware that one of the two prior convictions that prompted the Class X treatment was on appeal and subject to possible reversal. Although the court acknowledged the defendant\u2019s eligibility for Class X treatment, at the defendant\u2019s request, it sentenced him based on the plea agreement.\nThe defendant has failed to establish that his plea was the product of either legal or factual misapprehension or misrepresentation by one with apparent authority. When the defendant chose to proceed with the plea agreement, in effect he invited the court to ignore the outcome of his appeal. Hence, we find that that subsequent circumstance did not taint the voluntariness of his plea; and that the court appropriately denied the defendant\u2019s motion to vacate his voluntary, negotiated plea. See People v. Woodruff (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 803, 371 N.E.2d 331.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER and WOMBACHER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen Omoleeki, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "William Herzog, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (Gary F. Gnidovec, 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. JAMES A. RAKES II, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201485\u20140683\nOpinion filed August 29,1986.\nStephen Omoleeki, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nWilliam Herzog, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (Gary F. Gnidovec, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0657-01",
  "first_page_order": 679,
  "last_page_order": 681
}