{
  "id": 2701714,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George McKay, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. McKay",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-39",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 39"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "307 N.E.2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill.App.3d 892",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2522847
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/16/0892-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.E.2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill.App.3d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2512784
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/17/0842-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.E.2d 738",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill.App.3d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2696366
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "480"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/19/0479-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 5776,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.703,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08360738405984287
    },
    "sha256": "fd1a69c37b32673ee22a9e08c676849e8886b6057955af292a54ddf43bc5328a",
    "simhash": "1:237b91eda97e49b5",
    "word_count": 977
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:56.200740+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. George McKay, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE CARTER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe appellant, George McKay, was charged by indictment with burglary. He entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to not less than 1 nor more than 3 years in the penitentiary.\nOn June 7, 1973, the grand jury of St. Clair County returned an indictment charging the defendant and two other men with burglary. On arraignment the defendant pled not guilty. Later as a result of plea negotiations he pled guilty. In return for the guilty plea the State promised to recommend probation, saying that the defendant did not have a previous felony record. The judge addressed the defendant personally, determining that he could read and write and that he had read the indictment. The minimum and maximum sentences were explained as were the rights to plead not guilty, to have a jury trial, and to confront witnesses. The State\u2019s Attorney provided the factual basis for the plea. The court determined that no force or threat had been made to obtain the plea. When the defendant appeared for sentencing, it was disclosed that he had a previous felony conviction for which he had been placed on probation. Considering this and a previous juvenile record, the court sentenced the defendant to 1 to 3 years instead of giving him probation.\nAppellant contends that the trial court failed to inform him of the nature of the charge as is required by Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(1).\nThis weU-quoted rule states that:\n\u201cIn hearings on pleas of guilty, tihere must be substantial compliance with the following:\n(a) Admonitions to Defendant. The court shaU not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following:\n(1) the nature of the charge; * * \u00ae\u201d\nThe record discloses that this requirement was discharged in the following manner:\n\u201cTHE COURT: Can you read and write?\nDEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Have you read the indictment that charges you with the offense of burglary?\nDEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: What did you do? Would you tell me in your own words your understanding of the charge of burglary?\nDEFENDANT: I just went in the house.\nTHE COURT: Somebody else\u2019s house?\nDEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Did you have permission to go into it?\nDEFENDANT: No, sir.\u201d\nAs pointed out in this appeal, the element of intent, an essential part of the crime of burglary, was not mentioned to the accused. Again, after the State\u2019s Attorney had supplied the factual basis for the plea, the court did not address the appellant and ask him if these facts were trae but instead questioned the appellant\u2019s attorney who replied, \u201cNothing to add.\u201d\nThe State argues that, when the entire record in the case is considered, it becomes clear that the requirements for substantial compliance with Rule 402(a)(1) were met. We do not agree.\nThe appellant was not asked if the statement of the factual basis for the plea was true. He was not asked if he understood the indictment which he said he had read. The elements of the offense of burglary, particularly the intent element, were not explained to him.\nThe facts in this case are virtually on all fours with People v. Roddy (1974), 19 Ill.App.3d 479, 480, 311 N.E.2d 738, where we said:\n\u201cWe are, of course, well aware of our holding in People v. Witherspoon, 17 Ill.App.3d 842, 308 N.E.2d 844, which the State cites for the proposition that a reasonably clear and hard-to-misunderstand statement of the facts of the offense, which is acknowledged by the defendant as accurate, will provide substantial compliance with Supreme Court 402(a)(1). In Witherspoon we reiterated our position in Billops [People v. Billops, 16 Ill.App.3d 892, 307 N.E.2d 206] by distinguishing the two cases as follows: \u2018In the present case [Witherspoon] the trial court addressed the defendant personally after the recital of the facts of the crime by the state\u2019s attorney, while in Billops the trial court did not.\u2019 [Citation.] In the instant case the trial court did not personally address the defendant with respect to the accuracy of the facts as recited by the prosecuting attorney.\nWithout such a personal acknowledgment by the defendant, there is no reason for not adhering to our interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(1) as set forth in BiUops. Accordingly, we find that the trial court failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(1).\u201d\nWe do not believe that on appeal the court should have to search the whole record and then conjecture as to whether or not Rule 402( a) (1) has been complied with. The requirement is specific; the intent of the legislature obviously was to have the trial judge \u201cput it on the line\u201d so there would be no doubt. This was not done, and the appellant\u2019s conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the appellant be permitted to plead anew. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary for us to consider appellant\u2019s contention that the court erred by failing to accept his guilty plea without telling him that it was not bound by the plea negotiations.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County is reversed and the cause remanded so that the appellant may be permitted to plead anew.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nG. MORAN, P. J., and EBERSPACHER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE CARTER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert E. Farrell, of Mt. Vernon, and James R. Streicker, of Chicago, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, for appellant.",
      "Robert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Robert L. Craig, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George McKay, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-39;\nFifth District\nNovember 27, 1974.\nRehearing denied January 16, 1975.\nRobert E. Farrell, of Mt. Vernon, and James R. Streicker, of Chicago, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, for appellant.\nRobert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Robert L. Craig, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 66
}