{
  "id": 2520746,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Dean Bennett, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bennett",
  "decision_date": "1974-02-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 73-73",
  "first_page": "972",
  "last_page": "974",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ill. App. 3d 972"
    }
  ],
  "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": 3446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.77,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.333735624774728e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7913916988982755
    },
    "sha256": "804e3925d4a246cacf3d70ebd324eae0f008f45b06c7bf92beb0da4be8135225",
    "simhash": "1:ea7ae1363847efff",
    "word_count": 576
  },
  "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. Gerald Dean Bennett, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM:\nThe defendant pled guilty to the offenses of aggravated assault and criminal damage to property and made an application for probation. After a probation hearing was held, probation was denied, and the defendant was sentenced to serve seven months at the State Farm.\nThe record indicates that the trial judge failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 402(d) (1) which states that the trial judge shall not initiate plea discussions. (Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 110A, sec 402(d)(1)). After the court was informed that the defendant wished to plead guilty, the State\u2019s Attorney advised the court that the plea was made pursuant to plea negotiations. In return for the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty the State was to recommend a fine of approximately $350 for the offense of aggravated assault. The State\u2019s Attorney remarked that no penalty had been negotiated for the criminal damage to property charge because \u201cit was a rather minor matter\u201d. The negotiated plea did not include anything about the defendant being placed on probation.\nThe trial judge stated that he would accept a plea agreement if the defendant pled guilty and applied for probation. If the probation report was favorable to the defendant, a fine was to be imposed and the defendant was to be placed on probation. The State\u2019s Attorney then informed the court that he had not discussed probation with defense counsel, and the trial judge replied:\n\u201cIf you wish to enter a plea of guilty on that basis I will accept it and we will proceed along those lines.\u201d\nBoth attorneys then informed the court that the defendant would likely be placed on probation for a federal offense and that there was no point in having two probations running at one time. The judge then stated:\n\u201cI think with what you told me concerning Mr. Bennett, I think he needs to be under probation for a while.\u201d\nThe defendant and his attorney then stated that the agreement, as modified by the trial judge, was acceptable.\nThe trial judge substantially modified the plea agreement by inserting the provision concerning probation. The judge insisted that a probation provision be a part of the agreement even after both attorneys stated that they did not think it was necessary. We believe that such conduct is a violation of Rule 402(d) (1).\nThe record also reveals that the trial court failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 402 (b). (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, sec. 402(b)). That provision obligates the trial court to determine whether any force, threats or promises, apart from a plea agreement, were used to obtain the plea. The trial court failed to ask whether any force, threats or promises were used, or otherwise inquire into the voluntariness of the plea.\nFor the foregoing reasons we reverse the defendant\u2019s conviction and remand the case to the Circuit Court of Christian County with directions that the defendant be permitted to plead anew.\nReversed and remanded with instructions.\nCREES, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert E. Farrell, Deputy Defender, of Mt. Vernon (Michael J. Rosborough, Assistant Appellate Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "John H. Ward, of Taylorville (James W. Jerz and Martin P. Moltz, both 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. Gerald Dean Bennett, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 73-73;\nFifth District\nFebruary 6, 1974.\nCREBS, J., took no part.\nRobert E. Farrell, Deputy Defender, of Mt. Vernon (Michael J. Rosborough, Assistant Appellate Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nJohn H. Ward, of Taylorville (James W. Jerz and Martin P. Moltz, both of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0972-01",
  "first_page_order": 994,
  "last_page_order": 996
}