{
  "id": 5407578,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee Johnson, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-123",
  "first_page": "902",
  "last_page": "905",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 902"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 N.E.2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "410 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5311264
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/410/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.E.2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill.2d 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2779115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/12/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N.E.2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 Ill. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2663119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/412/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.E.2d 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill.2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2861708
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0039-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 399,
    "char_count": 8043,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0834921089589723e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5631260741456355
    },
    "sha256": "eb882891fb29780116adca90a9b8b244f8f061ab97a6a0668c948af0256d0ad5",
    "simhash": "1:2aaa60ccdba3843c",
    "word_count": 1378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.902616+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. Robert Lee Johnson, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr; JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an- appeal from a guilty plea which the defendant entered to a burglary indictment. The defendant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to aHow him to withdraw his plea of guilty.\nOn October 15, 1973, the defendant\u2019s attorney stated to the court that the defendant had made a confession and that he recognized that he had very little defense and would like to enter a plea of guilty. Defendant\u2019s attorney advised the court, \u201cI have indicated to him [defendant] that in all probability, even though there was no recommendation, but if the defendant was telling the truth about his record, that there is an excellent chance that he would make probation.\u201d The defendant\u2019s attorney also stated that there had been no plea negotiations and then made oral application for probation.\nThe court then asked the defendant if he had sufficient time to speak with his attorney and if he understood the crime with which he was charged. The defendant stated that he had sufficient time to speak with his attorney and knew he was charged with burglary. The defendant was informed of the maximum and minimum sentences. The court then said:\n\u201cQ. Do you understand that it is the court\u2019s duty to impose sentence? It is not what Mr. Cook [defendant\u2019s attorney] or what Mr. Aguirre [State\u2019s attorney] might think. It\u2019s what I think and what I do that counts, do you understand that?\nA. Yes sir.\u201d\nThe defendant was informed of his right to a trial, of his right to a trial by jury or a judge, and that a plea of guilty waived this right. He was informed of his right to a speedy and public trial, his right to confrontation of witnesses, his right to call witnesses, his presumption of innocence and his privilege against self-incrimination, and that by pleading guilty he waived all of these rights. The defendant stated that he understood these rights. He was then asked by the court whether any threats had been made to him or his family to induce the plea, and if any promises or rewards had been made to induce the plea. The defendant stated that no threats or promises had been made and that the plea was the result of his own decision.\nThe factual basis for the crime was established and the defendant stated that the facts as adduced by the State\u2019s attorney were true. The defendant\u2019s guilty plea was accepted and the matter was referred to the probation department for report. Later, after seeing the presentence report which did not recommend probation, the defendant appeared before the same trial judge. He was then represented by a different attorney who advised the court that there was some confusion as to whether there had been a plea negotiation. On the basis of the discussion the new attorney had with the defendant, and on the basis of confusion over the plea negotiations, the new attorney stated that the defendant would like to move to withdraw his plea of guilty.\n\u25a0 The defendant then took the stand and in response to questions by his attorney, stated that he had discussed the consequences of his change of plea with his first attorney. He said that his first attorney merely told him to plead guilty and he would get probation. The defendant also stated that the first attorney had made no indication to him that any arrangements with anyone or any agreement had been made about probation. The following exchange also took place:\n\u201cQ. What precisely did Mr. * * * tell you other than what you already stated?\nA. He just told me if I pleaded guilty that most likely I would get probation on the case.\u201d (Emphasis supplied.)\nThe defendant, in response to questioning by the State\u2019s attorney stated that he was under the impression that he would get probation when he pled guilty. However, when asked what his first attorney promised him, the defendant stated several times that he said \u201cI would get probation.\u201d The defendant also stated that he told his first attorney that he had been on probation before and informed the first attorney of everything concerning his prior record.\nThe trial court then questioned the defendant. The court\u2019s questioning showed that the defendant remembered entering his plea of guilty. He also remembered what the first attorney had said concerning his chances as to probation. The questioning revealed that the defendant understood the court\u2019s admonishment and that the defendant knew that sentence was to be imposed by the judge. The questioning also revealed that the plea was not induced by any force, threat or promises. Testimony regarding the defendant\u2019s prior record followed.\nThe defendant\u2019s attorney at the presentence hearing also testified. He testified that when he took the case the defendant\u2019s first attorney advised him that the disposition of tire case would be probation. He stated that he did not know what the defendant had been told by his first attorney, but relying on what was told by the first attorney and some of the defendant\u2019s statements with regard to his prior record, the defendant may not have understood the effects his record would have on his chance for probation and as a result should be given an opportunity to plead again.\nThe court stated that the court had a very vivid recollection of Mr. Johnson\u2019s g\u00fcilty plea and that the court was satisfied that at the time the defendant entered his plea, he was well aware of his rights. The court further stated that the plea was not the result of any negotiations and that no recommendations had been made. With- that the court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.\nEvidence was adduced concerning the defendant\u2019s employment and academic standing. The court then denied the defendant\u2019s application for probation and sentenced him to the Department of Corrections for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years.\nThe defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The standards for the withdrawal of a guilty plea are firmly established in Illinois. The defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty once made, and it is usually within the discretion of the trial court to grant the. motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. The motion is to be granted not as a matter of right, but to correct a manifest injustice based on the facts of the individual case. (People v. Walston, 38 Ill.2d 39, 230 N.E.2d 233.) A motion to grant the withdrawal of a guilty plea should be allowed where it appeared that the plea of guilty was entered on a misapprehension of the facts or the law, or in consequence of a misrepresentation by counsel or the State\u2019s attorney or someone else in authority, or the case is one where there is doubt of the guilt of the accused, or where the accused has a defense worthy of consideration by a jury, or where the ends of justice will be better served by submitting the case to a jury. (People v. Morreole, 412 Ill. 528, 107 N.E.2d 721.) The mere fact, on the other hand, that an accused, knowing his rights and the consequences of his act, hopes and believes that he will receive a shorter sentence or milder punishment by pleading guilty than from a jury, presents no grounds for permitting the withdrawal of the plea after he finds that his expectation has not been realized. People v. Grabowski, 12 Ill.2d 462, 147 N.E.2d 49; People v. Hancasky, 410 Ill. 148, 101 N.E.2d 575.\nIn our opinion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant permission to withdraw his plea of guilty. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nEBERSPACHER and CARTER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr; JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul Bradley and Steven Clark, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Robert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Bruce D. Irish and Myra J. Brown, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-123;\nFifth District\nMay 26, 1975.\nPaul Bradley and Steven Clark, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRobert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Bruce D. Irish and Myra J. Brown, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0902-01",
  "first_page_order": 926,
  "last_page_order": 929
}