{ "id": 2509680, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Carmichael, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Carmichael", "decision_date": "1974-01-16", "docket_number": "No. 58681", "first_page": "249", "last_page": "252", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "17 Ill. App. 3d 249" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "285 N.E.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Ill.App.3d 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2469071 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/6/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 N.E.2d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 Ill.2d 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2904916 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/47/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N.E.2d 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "412 Ill. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2663119 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "532" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/412/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 N.E.2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 Ill.2d 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2779115 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "468" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/12/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 N.E.2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "388" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 Ill.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2858227 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/39/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 U.S. 487", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6173883 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" }, { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/368/0487-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 426, "char_count": 7825, "ocr_confidence": 0.719, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.776539203851107e-08, "percentile": 0.4956740721177181 }, "sha256": "6ee045035eda7df4e6afddf7212d5c29952a5aa1cd9ad9fd44758d569058de61", "simhash": "1:62ea68f79b86a4f8", "word_count": 1268 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:57.081722+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 Carmichael, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JOHNSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals from the denial of his post-conviction petition alleging that his plea of guilty to assault was involuntary in that it was induced by an unfulfilled promise of leniency made by his attorney. The issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The State alleges that the trial judge conducted such a hearing.\nOn October 10, 1969, James Carmichael was placed on probation for five years by the Honorable Felix M. Buoscio pursuant to. a guilty plea to indecent liberties with a child. On August 10, 1971, the defendant pled guilty to assault before the Honorable John F. Hechinger and was placed on probation for one year. As a result of the defendant\u2019s guilty plea to the charge of assault, Judge Buoscio found him guilty of a violation of probation and, on January 17, 1972, sentenced him to a term of four years to four years and one day on his conviction for indecent liberties with a chid.\nThe defendant appeared before Judge Buoscio on a stay of mittimus on February 18,1972. During this hearing, the defendant stated that his plea of guilty to assault resulted from a promise by his attorney, Bernard Wolfe, that Judge Buoscio had agreed not to revoke his probation if he (Carmichael) agreed to plead guilty to assault before Judge Hechinger. Judge Buoscio stated that he had not made any promises or arrangements with Mr. Wolfe. The court then ordered that the mittimus should issue.\nOn April 14, 1972, the defendant filed a pro se petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act alleging that his guilty plea to assault was the result of a misrepresentation made by his attorney. After counsel was appointed, an amended petition was filed alleging that the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was involuntary and secured in violation of his constitutional rights in that it was based on a misrepresentation by his attorney. The State filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on the grounds that it failed to raise a constitutional issue within the scope of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act and that, even if defendant\u2019s allegations rose to a constitutional level, they were bare allegations insufficient to require \u00e1 hearing.\nJudge Hechinger ordered a hearing on the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the amended petition. On November 2, 1972, Bernard Wolfe appeared and testified at length about his understanding of the circumstances surrounding the purported agreement with Judge Buoscio. Wolfe stated that he had telephoned Judge Buoscio regarding defendant\u2019s probation revocation hearing; that Judge Buoscio had stated that he \u201cwould try to go along\u201d with Judge Hechinger\u2019s finding on the assault charge when he (Judge Buoscio) reviewed the charge of probation violation; and that he (Wolfe) had the \u201cimpression\u201d that Judge Buoscio would go along with Judge Hechinger\u2019s ruling to the defendant. The court then noted an affidavit filed by Judge Buoscio stating that he did not recall whether Bernard Wolfe ever caUed him with respect to the case which was then pending before Judge Hechinger but that he (Judge Buoscio) did not promise to go along with any action taken by Judge Hechinger.\nAt the conclusion' of the hearing, Judge Hechinger found no violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional rights when he entered his plea of guilty and granted the State\u2019s motion to dismiss. As the basis of his ruling, Judge Hechinger stated that he was bound by the proceedings at the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty and noted that he had admonished the defendant, prior to accepting the guilty plea, that there was no guarantee as to what would happen on the probation violation charge before Judge Buoscio.\nIn this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his amended petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing on the factual issue presented in his amended petition. That issue, he contends, was not whether Judge Buoscio in fact made an agreement with Mr. Wolfe but whether defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to assault was induced by Wolfe\u2019s representation to the defendant that an agreement had been made with Judge Buoscio.\nThe State argues that the hearing before Judge Hechinger did resolve the factual issue raised in defendant\u2019s petition and that the defendant failed to show a substantial deprivation of his constitutional rights at the hearing. They contend that the representations made by Mr. Wolfe to defendant were not absolute promises but predictions which estimated leniency at the impending probation violation proceeding before Judge Buoscio.\nA guHty plea, if induced by an unfulfilled promise of leniency, loses its voluntary nature and shaH be considered void. (Machibroda v. United States (1962), 368 U.S. 487, 493, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, 478; People v. Sigafus (1968), 39 Ill.2d 68, 71, 233 N.E.2d 386, 388.) However, a guilty plea made in reliance upon advice of counsel estimating defendant\u2019s chances of acquittal, and expected sentencing, is a voluntary plea. The mere fact that an accused, knowing his rights and the consequences of his act, hopes and believes that he will receive a shorter sentence or milder punishment by pleading guilty than he would upon a trial and conviction by a jury, presents no ground for permitting the withdrawal of the plea after he finds that his expectation has not been realized. (People v. Grabowski (1957), 12 Ill.2d 462, 468, 147 N.E.2d 49, 52; People v. Morrecle (1952), 412 Ill. 528, 532, 107 N.E.2d 721, 724.) Thus, the question we must decide is whether there was sufficient evidence before tire court, at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, to determine whether the statements of defense counsel on which defendant purportedly relied constituted a prediction estimating leniency or an absolute promise.\nWe note, first of all, that defendant does not challenge the veracity of the evidence received at the hearing but the interpretation to be drawn therefrom. Under the defendant\u2019s view, Wolfe\u2019s testimony at the hearing unequivocably supported his contention that a promise of leniency had been made. Thus, this case is unlike Machibroda v. United States (1962), 368 U.S. 487, 7 L.Ed\u00fcd 473, and People v. Sigafus (1968), 39 Ill.2d 68, 233 N.E.2d 386, where there were controverted issues of fact and the trial court improperly dismissed the petition without a hearing.\nOur review of the record shows that, in'essence, Mr. Wolfe told the defendant that it was his (Wolfe\u2019s) \u201cimpression\u201d that Judge Buoscio would \u201ctry\u201d to go along with Judge Hechinger\u2019s disposition on tire assault charge. In our opinion, the use of the words \u201cimpression\u201d and \u201ctry\u201d connotes a prediction rather than an affirmative promise. Moreover, the effect of any promise was removed by the court\u2019s admonishment, prior to accepting the guilty plea, that no guarantees could be made. People v. Jackson (1970), 47 Ill.2d 344, 348, 265 N.E.2d 622, 624; People v. Dodd (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 485, 285 N.E.2d 582.\nIn view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence before tire court to resolve the factual issue raised in defendant\u2019s petition and that it ruled correctly in dismissing the petition.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBURMAN and DIERINGER, JJ., concur.\nIll. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, $ 122 et seq.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JOHNSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul Bradley, Deputy Defender, of Chicago (Martin Carlson, Assistant Appellate Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis and Barry Rand Elden, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Carmichael, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 58681;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nJanuary 16, 1974.\nPaul Bradley, Deputy Defender, of Chicago (Martin Carlson, Assistant Appellate Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis and Barry Rand Elden, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0249-01", "first_page_order": 271, "last_page_order": 274 }