{
  "id": 2940686,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Townsend, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Townsend",
  "decision_date": "1974-09-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 59784",
  "first_page": "691",
  "last_page": "694",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 Ill. App. 3d 691"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "288 N.E.2d 533",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill.App.3d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2671545
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "804"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0800-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.E.2d 568",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill.App.3d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5342539
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "239"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/13/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 238",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771759
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0238-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 412,
    "char_count": 7608,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2849901673804148
    },
    "sha256": "beeb0e452948419416199a1da722f3f82e5ded6acc55c0cd1d262cbd567617da",
    "simhash": "1:746df252779d86e4",
    "word_count": 1311
  },
  "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. Ernest Townsend, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant entered a plea of guilty to an amended indictment charging him with the offense of robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 18 \u2014 1) and was sentenced to from 1 to 6 years. On appeal he contends that the trial court\u2019s admonishment as to the possible minimum sentence he could receive was erroneous, and that the \u201cpossible effect\u201d of this admonishment was to induce his plea of guilty.\nDefendant was initially charged with the offense of armed robbery. On motion of the state the indictment was amended to read \u201crobbery.\u201d Pursuant to a conference with the State\u2019s Attorney, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty to armed robbery and entered a plea of guilty to robbery. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, par. 402) the trial court admonished him as follows:\n\u201cThe Court: You waive preliminary hearing in the indictment?\nThe Defendant: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Mr. Townsend, how old are you?\nThe Defendant: Thirty-one.\nThe Court: How much schooling have you had?\nThe Defendant: Ten and a half.\nThe Court: The State, with agreement and consent of your lawyer, has amended this indictment No. 72-3191, charging that you, on May 5, 1972, at and within said county, Ernest Townsend committed the offense of robbery, in that he, by use of force, took an amount of U.S. Currency from the person of Sandra Green, in violation of the State Statutes. Do you understand that?\nThe Defendant: Yes.\nThe Court: How do you plead to that charge, guilty or not guilty?\nThe Defendant: Guilty.\nThe Court: You understand when you plead guilty to an indictment of this type, you give up or waive certain rights. Among these rights is your absolute right to have a trial by a jury of 12 men or women, who, in the event they find you guilty, they must vote for your guilt unanimously and who would be selected by your attorney, Mr. Lampkin, and the State\u2019s Attorney. Do you understand that right?\nThe Defendant: Yes.\nThe Court: You are willing to give up or waive that right?\nThe Defendant: Yes.\nThe Court: I ask you to sign a jury waiver indicating your willingness to surrender this right.\nI have the jury waiver which I direct be attached to and made a part of the permanent court record in this cause.\nIn addition to that, Mr. Townsend, you give up certain other rights. One of these rights is your absolute right to have the State attempt to prove this case as required by law beyond a reasonable doubt; to cross-examine witnesses of the State; and to offer evidence on your own behalf. Do you wish to give up those rights?\nMr. Townsend: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Furthermore, you give up your absolute right not to incriminate yourself and not to testify in this cause. Do you wish to give up that right?\nThe Defendant: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: I am informing you, sir, on your plea of guilty to this reduced charge, this charge of plain robbery, that I can, if I see fit, sentence you to any term of years not less than one nor more than twenty, two to ten, ten to fifteen or fifteen to twenty years in this indictment. Do you understand that?\nThe Defendant: Yes.\nThe Court: I have related to your lawyer, Mr. Lampkin, and the State\u2019s Attorney, pursuant to your lawyer\u2019s conference with the State\u2019s Attorney, Mr. Montemurro, I would accept the recommendation of the State\u2019s Attorney and I would sentence you to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of years not less than one nor more than six on your plea of guilty. Do you understand that?\nThe Defendant: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Are you willing to accept such a penalty in this case, sir?\nThe Defendant: Yes.\nMr. Montemurro: For the record, Section 1005 \u2014 8\u20142 of the new Illinois Code of Corrections indicates the court may sentence a defendant 17 years of age or older and convicted of a felony, which he inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily injury to another, or use a firearm, to a term not to exceed twice the maximum sentence.\u201d\nA sentence of from 1 to 6 years was thereupon imposed.\nOPINION\nRobbery is a Class 2 felony. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 18 \u2014 1, as amended by P.A. 77-2638, sec. 1.) The Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20141), effective at the time defendant entered his guilty plea, provided that the maximum term to be imposed upon conviction of a Class 2 felony \u201cshall be any term in excess of one year not exceeding 20 years.\u201d The minimum term \u201cshall not be greater than one-third of the maximum term set in that case by the court.\u201d The court, in its admonishment, informed defendant that' he could b\u00e9 sentenced to \u201cany term of years not less than one nor more than twenty, two to ten, ten to fifteen or fifteen to twenty years in this [robbery] indictment.\u201d Defendant argues that a term of from \u201cten to fifteen or fifteen to twenty years\u201d would be clearly contrary to the sentencing provisions of the Unified Code of Corrections and therefore this admonishment had the possible effect of inducing his guilty plea, thus denying him rights guaranteed by Supreme Court Rule 402.\nRule 402 was enacted (1) to ensure compliance with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709, that a guilty plea may be accepted only if there is an affirmative showing that the defendant voluntarily and understandingly entered his plea \u00e1nd (2) to provide a reviewing court with a record containing an accurate and complete account of all relevant plea negotiations surrounding the guilty plea. (See Committee Comments, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, par. 402.) The rule requires substantial, not literal, compliance with its precepts. \u201c[I]ts objective is fixed but its application is flexible. (People v. Campbell, 13 Ill.App.3d 237, 239, 300 N.E.2d 568.)\u201d \u201c[A] purely technical error which does not prejudice the defendant will not be deemed less than substantial compliance [with the rule] and therefore will not be cause for reversal of the conviction.\u201d People v. Hudson, 7 Ill.App.3d 800, 804, 288 N.E.2d 533.\nIn the case at bar the record makes clear that defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was the product of negotiations between his attorney and the assistant State\u2019s Attorney. The State, it appears, agreed to reduce the offense with which defendant was charged and recommend a lenient sentence. The court informed defendant that it would accept the State\u2019s recommendation of a sentence of from 1 to 6 years. Defendant affirmed that he was \u201cwilling to accept such a penalty.\u201d In addition, defendant was fully advised of the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea. Under these circumstances it is obvious that, when taken in context, the court\u2019s statement that defendant could be sentenced to from \u201cten to fifteen or fifteen to twenty years\u201d did not in any way prejudice defendant. There can be no doubt that the court did not intend to impose a sentence other than that which had been negotiated during plea discussions, and it is equally clear that defendant understood this. We find that the admonishment of the trial court was in substantial compliance with Rule 402 and therefore affirm the judgment entered below.\nAffirmed.\nBARRETT and LORENZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Leonard V. Solomon, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Townsend, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 59784;\nFirst District (5th Division)\nSeptember 13, 1974.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Leonard V. Solomon, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0691-01",
  "first_page_order": 713,
  "last_page_order": 716
}