{
  "id": 2511804,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny S. Scarponi, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Scarponi",
  "decision_date": "1974-02-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 12199",
  "first_page": "824",
  "last_page": "827",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 Ill. App. 3d 824"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "221 F. Supp. 930",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        65096
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/221/0930-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.E.2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill.App.3d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2678540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0507-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.E.2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill.2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2888951
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/44/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.E.2d 83",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill.2d 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2898190
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/46/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.E.2d 810",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill.2d 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2695011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/3/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.E.2d 451",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill.2d 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2844763
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/43/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.E.2d 368",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill.2d 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2907962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0300-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 421,
    "char_count": 6828,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08161769276896066
    },
    "sha256": "103d9586b3289e822e7ccf60816656b1c98c09f13f721a7d56218c969ac6d354",
    "simhash": "1:508855b7d98fa007",
    "word_count": 1115
  },
  "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. Danny S. Scarponi, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE SIMKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Danny S. Scarponi, was indicted on two charges for the offense of forgery in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, sec. 17 \u2014 3. Defendant, represented by an assistant public defender, Michael Costello, entered a plea of guilty to both of the charges pursuant to plea negotiations with the State\u2019s Attorney. Defendant was then sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four to eight years. This is an appeal from a denial by the trial judge after an evidentiary hearing of defendant\u2019s post-conviction petition filed pursuant to the post-conviction provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, sec. 122 \u2014 1 et seq.\nIn his petition defendant asserts that during plea negotiations he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because the trial judge denied defendant\u2019s counsel\u2019s motion to withdraw. Defendant further contended that he agreed to the negotiated recommendation because had he gone to trial he would not have been effectively represented and would have been subjected to the possibility of greater penalties.\nThe basis for defendant\u2019s contention is founded in a pretrial hearing on October 19, 1970, at which time defendant\u2019s counsel moved to withdraw from defendant\u2019s case because of a substantial disagreement with defendant\u2019s wife. The hearing concluded in relevant part as follows:\n\u201cMr. Costello: However, your honor, I cannot, and I state this for the record, the aHegations that were made as to the methods in which I was handling this case \u2014 I wiU not be able to deal effectively with the defendant or the defendant\u2019s wife in this case. I wish to \u2014 I ask leave to be \u2014 that my appearance as public defender be withdrawn, that one of the other public defenders be appointed.\nYour honor, I suggest that, again, no malice was intended except I effectively \u2014 I state this to the Court \u2014 that I cannot deal now on an unemotional basis with either the defendant or the defendant\u2019s wife and it\u2019s going to seriously prejudice his rights to the effective use of counsel by continuing me on this case, your Honor. I have never asked this before. I ask to be \u2014 ask that the Court allow me to withdraw from the defense of Mr. Scarponi.\nThe Court: All right. That motion will be denied,\nMrs. Scarponi: Well, your Honor, I have said things to my husband, but he never seems to talk to his attorney, or whatnot, and I know Mr. Costello \u2014 I\u2019ve seen how busy he is.\nThe Court: All right.\nI\u2019m not going to get into any debate. Do you understand, Mr. Scarponi, anything that your wife communicates to you that you feel would be helpful to your attorney and yourself in the preparation of your case, you tell him.\nMrs. Scarponi: I don\u2019t feel Mr. Costello \u2014 my husband has any defense, your Honor \u2014 after speaking with Mr. Costello\u2014\nThe Court: Just a minute.\nDo you understand, Mr. Scarponi? Do you have any questions? Mr. Scarponi: Are you addressing me? Well, I don\u2019t know. This man made a motion to get off my case, your Honor.\nThe Court: Yes.\nMr. Scarponi: Why not grant him this motion?\nThe Court: No reason to. Were not going to play hop and jump with attorneys around here, and I don\u2019t think there has been any adequate motion to relieve him of this case. The motion will be denied * \u201d\nThe trial judge in his denial of the post-conviction petition specifically found that defendant never actually expressed dissatisfaction with counsel nor any desire for different counsel. Furthermore, \u201cthere is nothing in the record to indicate that counsel was incompetent nor that defendant had been prejudiced.\u201d\nA proceeding under the post-conviction provisions of our Criminal Code is civil in nature, and the determination of the trial judge must be upheld unless manifestly erroneous. (People v. Rose, 48 Ill.2d 300, 268 N.E.2d 368; People v. Harper, 43 Ill.2d 368, 253 N.E.2d 451.) To conclude that the quality, of the representation of defendant at trial was violative of due process, the petitioner has the burden to clearly establish actual incompetence and substantial prejudice without which the outcome would have been different. People u. Morris, 3 Ill.2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810; People v. Stepheny, 46 Ill.2d 153, 263 N.E.2d 83; People v. Wease, 44 Ill.2d 453, 255 N.E.2d 426; People v. Harper, 43 Ill.2d 368, 253 N.E.2d 451; People v. Smith, 7 Ill.App.3d 507, 288 N.E.2d 19.\nAt the post-conviction evidentiary hearing the trial judge heard the arguments of defendant\u2019s counsel and defendant\u2019s original trial counsel. The latter testified that the only reason for his motion to withdraw was that defendant\u2019s wife had been constantly harrassing him with phone calls at all hours of the day and night. He stated, however, that the badgering in no way affected his handling of the technical aspects of the case. Indeed, he testified to extensive pre-trial preparation, even to the point of going \u201coverboard\u201d to get up for the trial, and to numerous motions in behalf of defendant subsequent to his motion to withdraw.\nIn the instant case the record is completely barren of anything that would indicate actual incompetence on the part of defendant\u2019s counsel or prejudice to defendant in his counsel\u2019s handling of either the plea negotiations or the pretrial preparations. Furthermore, defendant never actually manifested his displeasure with his appointed counsel\u2019s handling of his case until the post-conviction petition was filed.\nDefendant\u2019s reliance on Anderson v. North Carolina, 221 F. Supp. 930 (D.C. N. Car. 1963), for the proposition that defendant is entitled to have another counsel conduct the plea negotiations regardless of whether the new counsel could work out a better deal than that agreed upon or not, is inappropriate in the instant case. In Anderson defendant was not represented by any counsel at the. plea negotiations whereas here defendant was represented, and nothing in the record suggests incompetence or prejudice to defendant in counsel\u2019s handling of those negotiations.\nOn the record before this court, we cannot say that the factual finding by the trial judge was manifestly erroneous nor can we find any constitutional infirmity in the proceedings that led to defendant\u2019s conviction and incarceration. Accordingly, the trial judge properly denied defendant\u2019s post-conviction petition, and we therefore affirm.\nAffirmed.\nCRAVEN, P. J., and SMITH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE SIMKINS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert S. O\u2019Shea, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "C. Joseph Cavanagh, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (James W. Jerz and Thomas F. Sullivan, Jr., 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. Danny S. Scarponi, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12199;\nFourth District\nFebruary 27, 1974.\nRehearing denied April 3,1974.\nRobert S. O\u2019Shea, of Springfield, for appellant.\nC. Joseph Cavanagh, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (James W. Jerz and Thomas F. Sullivan, Jr., both of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office* of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0824-01",
  "first_page_order": 846,
  "last_page_order": 849
}