{
  "id": 2940029,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Barringer, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Barringer",
  "decision_date": "1974-09-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-15",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "169",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 Ill. App. 3d 168"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 985",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771745,
        1771893,
        1771620,
        1771709
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0985-01",
        "/us/395/0985-03",
        "/us/395/0985-04",
        "/us/395/0985-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.E.2d 123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill.App.2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2476489
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "302"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/97/0288-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill.App.3d 972",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2520746
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "973"
        },
        {
          "page": "973"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/16/0972-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3180,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.65067854127537e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5279960337455968
    },
    "sha256": "e232528edd4b58c4fff72f77f7fdb3eb751c6de240e13821d7f33f5c11c9ac10",
    "simhash": "1:8858fd4fee16a5d5",
    "word_count": 522
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:04:13.341458+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 Barringer, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE EBERSPACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment entered by the circuit court of Massac County, on a plea of guilty, against the defendant, James Bar-ringer, for the offense of escape and the imposition of a sentence of 1 to 3 years in the penitentiary, said sentence to run concurrently with the sentence which defendant was serving at the time of his escape.\nThe defendant\u2019s sole contention on this appeal is that the \u201ctrial court failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 402(d)(1),\u201d prohibiting it from initiating plea discussions, \u201cwhen it modified the plea agreement by insisting that the sentence include the defendant\u2019s payment of court costs.\u201d The defendant cites one case, People v. Bennett, 16 Ill.App.3d 972, 307 N.E.2d 176, in support of this contention.\nIn People v. Bennett this court found that:\n\u201cThe 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.\u201d (16 Ill.App.3d at 973.)\nThis court there held \u201cthat such conduct is a violation of Rule 402(d) (1).\u201d (16 Ill.App.3d at 973.) The defendant contends that instant case \u201cis factually similar to Bennett.\u201d We do not agree,\nIn Bennett the trial court\u2019s action resulted in a substantial modification of the plea agreement. Not only did that modification drastically alter the plea agreement, but it injected the possibility of incarceration where none had existed previously. In contrast, the trial judge in the instant case merely inserted the condition that the defendant pay die court costs. It was appropriate for the judge to do so in view of the language in section 13 of the act in judgments and executions (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 180\u20143), which provides:\n\u201cWhen any person is convicted of an offense under any statute, or at common law, the court shall give judgment that the offender pay the costs of prosecution.\u201d\nIn fact, the court in People v. Harris, 97 Ill.App.2d 288, 240 N.E.2d 123, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 985, held: \u201c[Sjection 180 \u2014 3 (Judgment for costs) of Chapter 38 leaves no discretion in the court by the use of the word shall\u2019.\u201d (97 Ill.App.2d at 302.) Therefore the trial judge was not only authorized but required to have the defendant pay the court costs. We hold the trial judge\u2019s compliance with tire foregoing statutory requirement did not violate the proscription against the trial judge\u2019s initiation of plea negotiation embodied in Supreme Court Rule 402 (d)(1).\nHaving found the defendant\u2019s only contention without merit, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Massac County.\nJudgment affirmed.\nG. MORAN, P. J., and CARTER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE EBERSPACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert E. Farrell and Steven Clark, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Robert J. Neely, State\u2019s Attorney, of Metropolis (Ralph J. Mendelsohn, of Model State\u2019s Attorneys Support Unit, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Barringer, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-15;\nFifth District\nSeptember 11, 1974.\nRobert E. Farrell and Steven Clark, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRobert J. Neely, State\u2019s Attorney, of Metropolis (Ralph J. Mendelsohn, of Model State\u2019s Attorneys Support Unit, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 190,
  "last_page_order": 191
}