{
  "id": 5379002,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. Schultz, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Schultz",
  "decision_date": "1974-08-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 73-147",
  "first_page": "1086",
  "last_page": "1088",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 3d 1086"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "407 U.S. 25",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9136521
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "37"
        },
        {
          "page": "538"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/407/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ill.App.3d 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2748101
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "436"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/2/0434-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 4555,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.605085434253971e-08,
      "percentile": 0.403682801584185
    },
    "sha256": "984747aa96528d8b0742bd9d18645f4ed1788e7ff48415493510f1cc0d465ec8",
    "simhash": "1:6b5bb1a76fd22ff4",
    "word_count": 780
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:03.342046+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. Charles L. Schultz, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals his conviction of petty theft on a plea of guilty and his sentence of 1 year to the Illinois Department of Corrections. He contends that (1) the record fails to show that his guilty plea was made voluntarily, (2) he was deprived of a fair sentencing hearing and (3) his sentence was excessive.\nDefendant was stopped at the door of an Oseo Drug Store in Rockford after he was seen picking up a wrench and a set of wrenches (total value $7.48), hiding them on his person and attempting to leave the store without paying. The police were called and defendant was arrested.\nAt his arraignment defendant appeared without counsel and tendered a plea of guilty. The State\u2019s Attorney had no police report available and the matter was continued by the court \u201cfor purposes of determining whether or not the plea of guilty will be accepted and for sentencing if the plea is accepted.\u201d\nAt the continued hearing 4 days later the State\u2019s Attorney summarized the police report. When the defendant stated he did not disagree with anything in the report and that he pleaded guilty, the trial court accepted the guilty plea by announcing that it would enter a judgment of conviction.\nDefendant was then engaged by the State\u2019s Attorney in a discussion of his prior record and acknowledged that he was on parole for car theft and had served 15 years in prison \u201cfor various things.\u201d The following colloquy then occurred:\n\u201cThe Court: I want to see his entire record before I sentence him.\nMr. Koski: [Prosecutor] Do you want to go back?\nThe Defendant: Well, I want to get my fine or whatever \u2014 to do six months or a year.\nMr. Koski: Do you want to go back is that what you are telling the Court?\nThe Defendant: No, I don\u2019t want to go back. If it amounts to that why I want an attorney.\nThe Court: Do you want an attorney on the sentencing hearing?\nThe Defendant: But I don\u2019t feel it\u2019s necessary for a Petty Theft.\nThe Court: I will have you brought down at 1:30. I want tp see what your further report is.\u201d\nAt the sentencing hearing the same afternoon the defendant stated to the court: \u201cI expressed before I don\u2019t believe it was theft because I didn\u2019t get outside the building.\u201d Before the State\u2019s first witness, a correctional counselor employed by the Department of Corrections began his testimony, the trial court stated to the defendant: \u201cBefore we proceed I would like to know was your plea a voluntary one * * The defendant answered, \u201cYes.\u201d\nAfter the examination was concluded the defendant had no questions to direct to the witness. Upon the recommendation of the State\u2019s Attorney the trial court then imposed the sentence of 1 year to the Department of Corrections. The defendant\u2019s comment was, \u201cThat is a heck of a deal for six dollars [sic].\u201d\nWe hold from the record here that the defendant did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. He had stated firmly at the sentencing hearing that he did not \u201cwant to go back\u201d to prison, stating: \u201cIf it amounts to that why I want an attorney.\u201d He added his \u201cfeeling\u201d that counsel was not necessary \u201cfor a petty theft.\u201d In People v. Pruitt (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 434, 436, we pointed out that in considering the words and conduct of the defendant we must indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver of his constitutional right to counsel. In the case at bar there was no effective waiver of defendant\u2019s right to counsel.\nIn Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25, 37, 32 L.Ed.2d 530, 538, 92 S.Ct. 2006, the United States Supreme Court held that \u201cabsent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.\u201d\nIn view of our holding on this point we need not consider other contentions raised by the defendant.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of Winnebago County is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nT. MORAN, P. J., and SEIDENFELD, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William L. Ralsley, of Loves Park, for appellant.",
      "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (James W. Jerz and Thomas F. Sullivan, Jr., both of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, and Robert R. McWilliams, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. Schultz, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 73-147;\nSecond District\nAugust 1, 1974.\nRehearing denied September 27, 1974.\nWilliam L. Ralsley, of Loves Park, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (James W. Jerz and Thomas F. Sullivan, Jr., both of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, and Robert R. McWilliams, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1086-01",
  "first_page_order": 1110,
  "last_page_order": 1112
}