{
  "id": 3508706,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM CULBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Culbertson",
  "decision_date": "1987-11-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 2-86-0037",
  "first_page": "319",
  "last_page": "322",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 3d 319"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 3d 941",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3347578
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "945"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/61/0941-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. App. 3d 1037",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2516654
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1038"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/16/1037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2667347
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "732"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3525406
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "426"
        },
        {
          "page": "426-27"
        },
        {
          "page": "426-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/128/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3149136
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210-11"
        },
        {
          "page": "212"
        },
        {
          "page": "213"
        },
        {
          "page": "213"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/91/0209-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2668663
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "308"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0306-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2761796
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "57-58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/8/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 356,
    "char_count": 5872,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1874335406573504e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5905435027293097
    },
    "sha256": "8ce35bd52cde3a6a6417de09eefb3332712d0d560be25942e70369c4f4b85e9c",
    "simhash": "1:8b6ae82cf5aef2ba",
    "word_count": 1004
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:31.562358+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 CULBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE INGLIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, William Culbertson, appeals from the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to vacate a guilty plea. Defendant pleaded guilty to residential burglary, and he was sentenced to a 12-year term of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that he did not make a voluntary plea of guilty because the trial court failed to admonish him substantially in accordance with the mandates of Supreme Court Rule 402(a) (107 Ill. 2d R. 402(a)). Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a 12-year term of imprisonment because a codefendant, Melvin Harold Davis, received only a seven-year term of imprisonment. We reverse and remand.\nDefendant first contends that he did not enter a voluntary plea of guilty because the trial court did not inform him of his right to a jury trial and he never signed a jury waiver form.\nSupreme Court Rule 402(a)(4) provides:\n\u201cThe court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following: * * *\n(4) that if he pleads guilty there will not be a trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty he waives the right to a trial by jury and the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.\u201d (107 Ill. 2d R. 402(a)(4).)\nSubstantial compliance with this requirement is not satisfied simply by showing that defendant has signed a waiver of jury form. People v. Carle (1972), 8 Ill. App. 3d 56, 57-58; People v. Cummings (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 306, 308.\nIn the instant action, the trial judge and defendant engaged in the following colloquy:\n\u201cTHE COURT: As you stand before this Court you\u2019re presumed to be innocent of this offense and you have a right to plead not guilty thereto. The burden would then be on the State to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: And you have heretofore entered a not guilty plea?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: Now as you stand before me this morning and enter a cold plea you\u2019re waiving that right. Do you understand that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: You\u2019re waiving your right to a hearing or trial?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: And finally you\u2019re waiving your right to be confronted by and to cross-examine the State\u2019s witnesses against you?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\u201d\nWe note that the trial judge made no reference to defendant regarding his right to a \u201cjury trial.\u201d Thus, the question becomes whether this omission requires that the guilty plea be set aside.\nIn People v. Cohn (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 209, 210-11, the defendant was admonished that by pleading guilty she had no right to a trial. This court stated that admonishing a defendant regarding waiver of a trial rather than waiver of a trial by jury may mislead the defendant into believing that she does not have the right to a trial by jury. (91 Ill. App. 3d at 212.) However, this court further noted that in that case, the record indicated that the defendant understood she had a right to a jury trial by her statement at the subsequent sentencing hearing that one of her reasons for declining to request a jury trial was to avoid publicity. (91 Ill. App. 3d at 213.) This court held that although the trial court\u2019s admonishment could have been more explicit, the defendant\u2019s statement indicated that she was not prejudiced. 91 Ill. App. 3d at 213.\nIn the instant action, the record contains no statement by defendant indicating that he understood that he had a right to a \u201cjury trial\u201d which would be waived by his plea of guilty. A court\u2019s failure to specifically address a defendant\u2019s right to a \u201cjury\u201d trial constitutes noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(4). (People v. Sutherland (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 415, 426; People v. Bolden (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 730, 732.) Furthermore, the Sutherland court held that the trial court\u2019s use of phrases at an earlier proceeding in the case referring to the defendant\u2019s right to either a trial by jury or by the court were not sufficient to constitute substantial compliance with the mandates of Rule 402(a)(4). (People v. Sutherland (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 415, 426-27; see also People v. Newbern (1974), 16 Ill. App. 3d 1037, 1038.) Compliance with Rule 402(a)(4) may not be found from admonitions given at proceedings prior to the guilty plea proceedings or in concurrent cases. People v. Porter (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 941, 945.\nTherefore, we conclude that where the trial court only admonished defendant that he would waive his right to a \u201ctrial\u201d by pleading guilty and did not expressly explain defendant\u2019s right to a \u201cjury trial,\u201d the admonishment was not sufficient to comply with Rule 402(aX4). We may not, as the State urges, consider the fact that defendant was told at his arraignment that he was entitled to a trial before the bench or by jury. People v. Sutherland (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 415, 426-27.\nIn light of our disposition of defendant\u2019s first contention of error, it is unnecessary to address his remaining contentions.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County, and we remand the cause to allow defendant to plead anew.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nHOPF and WOODWARD, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE INGLIS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. Joseph Weller and Kim M. DeWitt, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Robert J. Morrow, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva, and Kevin B. McCarthy, of Pfeifer & Kelty, P.C., of Springfield (William L. Browers, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of Elgin, and Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM CULBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201486\u20140037\nOpinion filed November 4, 1987.\nG. Joseph Weller and Kim M. DeWitt, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nRobert J. Morrow, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva, and Kevin B. McCarthy, of Pfeifer & Kelty, P.C., of Springfield (William L. Browers, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of Elgin, and Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0319-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 344
}