{
  "id": 2522870,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James W. Solesbee, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Solesbee",
  "decision_date": "1974-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 72-195",
  "first_page": "924",
  "last_page": "926",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ill. App. 3d 924"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill.App.3d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2671545
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "803"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0800-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 U.S. 459",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6174781
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "426"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/394/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2937034
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "583"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/55/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill.2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2908550
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "256-257"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill.2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2786129
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "370"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/11/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "491 P.2d 660",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Wash. App. 719",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1866951
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-app/5/0719-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 383,
    "char_count": 5256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.168668855370785e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4292813982591263
    },
    "sha256": "20daaec5cbdbac922dfef63c8cd48962b5fa42c10877fbfde68a80d3550ebd68",
    "simhash": "1:2d7bcd1831740d35",
    "word_count": 870
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:04.631682+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 W. Solesbee, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFrom a negotiated plea of guilty and a sentence of from two to five years, defendant appeals claiming the trial court erred by not conducting an incompetency hearing and not properly admonishing him under Supreme Court Rule 402.\nIn the related plea agreement, the State, in return for defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated battery, was to recommend a sentence of two to five years and dismiss a pending charge of rape against him. After the court admonished the defendant, but before accepting the plea, it inquired if any evidence was to be offered in aggravation or mitigation of the offense. Defendant\u2019s counsel replied:\n\u201c1 would just make a smaU representation to the Court, if the Court cares. This defendant has been for some time under psychiatric treatment on a week to week basis at the Mental Health Center and he did admit the offense to his therapist at the Mental Health Center who then called the police while Mr. Soles-bee ran instead of threatening [sic] to turn himself in.\u201d\nBased upon this response and in reliance upon State v. Harvey, 5 Wash. App. 719, 491 P.2d 660 (1971), defendant asserts that the court should have terminated the proceedings and sua sponte instituted a competency hearing. It is argued that failure to do so amounted to the acceptance of an involuntary plea of guilty. We have read the cited case and find it to be inapposite to the factual situation presented here.\nWhenever the trial court, through its own observation or otherwise, becomes aware of facts which raise a bona fide doubt as to defendant\u2019s present sanity, it has a duty to cause a sanity hearing to be held, People v. Burson, 11 Ill.2d 360, 370 (1957).\nIn the instant case no mention of or motion for a competency hearing was made. Aside from the quoted portion, the record is completely void of any facts which would bear upon defendant\u2019s fitness, mental or physical, to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. On the contrary, the record reveals defendant conducted himself in a lucid, rational manner and understood the nature and purpose of the proceedings. Without other strong indications of incompetency, defense counsel\u2019s statement, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a bona fide doubt (People v. Franklin, 48 Ill.2d 254, 256-257 (1971)), and when no request for a hearing is made, absent other compelling factors, it is not necessary for a court to order a competency hearing sua sponte. People v. Skorusa, 55 Ill.2d 577, 583 (1973).\nIt is next argued that the admonition failed to include a factual basis for the plea of guilty (Supreme Court Rule 402 (c)). In explaining the nature of the charge, the court, reading from the information, stated:\n\u201cThe matter about which you stand before the Court this morning is the offense of aggravated battery, and in that charge you are accused of knowingly and intentionally, without legal justification, committing a battery upon Fay E. Rhodes which caused great bodily harm to Fay E. Rhodes. The term \u2018battery\u2019 as used in this charge means intentional or knowing and by any means causing bodily harm to Fay E. Rhodes. Do you have any question at all as to what you are accused of in that information? Defendant: No, sir.\u201d\nLater in the admonition, the court stated:\n\u201cDo you enter this plea for any other reason other than that back on December 8, 1970, you did knowingly and intentionally, without legal justification, commit a battery upon Fay E. Rhodes, by causing great bodily harm to Fay E. Rhodes?\nDefendant: That\u2019s right.\u201d\nThe factual basis is established when the record discloses sufficient facts for the court to determine that the defendant actually committed the crime as charged, and the defendant understands that his acts constituted the- crime to which he pleads. (McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 426, 89 S.Ct. 1166 (1969); People v. Hudson, 7 Ill.App.3d 800, 803 (1972).) It is defendant\u2019s contention that the latter quoted admonition was nothing more than a reiteration of the nature of the charge. We disagree. The court\u2019s further inquiry into the acts committed by the defendant and defendant\u2019s resultant admission cre\u00e1ted sufficient factual basis for the acceptance of the plea of guilty.\nPending appeal, defendant moved for a summary modification of sentence under the Unified Code of Corrections. By answer, the State conceded that the defendant was entitled to a modification of sentence but requested this court to remand the case to the trial court for such purpose. We accede to this request.\nIn accordance with the foregoing, the conviction herein is affirmed and the cause remanded to the circuit court for sentencing pursuant to the provisions of the Unified Code of Correction.\nConviction affirmed; cause remanded with directions.\nGUILD, P. J., and SEIDENFELD, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner, Deputy Defender, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "William J. Cowlin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Woodstock (John D. Corby, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James W. Solesbee, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 72-195;\nSecond District\nFebruary 4, 1974.\nRalph Ruebner, Deputy Defender, of Elgin, for appellant.\nWilliam J. Cowlin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Woodstock (John D. Corby, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0924-01",
  "first_page_order": 946,
  "last_page_order": 948
}