{
  "id": 2836482,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Reed, Jr., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Reed",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-29",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 55686, 55687 cons.",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "294",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 Ill. App. 3d 293"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "270 N.E.2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill.2d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2908254
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0371-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 3684,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.86028884501704e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9327796717105901
    },
    "sha256": "86a0d6fd8c8b1886ce0e96fc449c7b30c3a8d01ccbff93f2e6bd4ce487fc3714",
    "simhash": "1:eee3fe8c75dae7f6",
    "word_count": 594
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:53:03.474127+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. Willie Reed, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThese are two appeals from the Circuit Court of Cook County, one for armed robbery, the other for bail jumping, the cases being consolidated in this court.\nThe defendant, Willie Reed, Junior, was indicted for the crimes of armed robbery and bail jumping. The trial court accepted the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to each indictment and sentenced him to two to six years for armed robbery and two to five years for bad jumping. Such sentences are to run concurrently.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in not advising the defendant prior to acceptance of his guilty pleas that the court could have imposed consecutive sentences.\nThe defendant appeared in court on September 3, 1970, at which time the defendant, through his private counsel and by himself, entered pleas of guilty to both indictments. Refore accepting either plea, the judge informed Mr. Reed of his right to plead not guilty, the nature of the charges against him, his right to a trial by jury, his right to confront witnesses, and his right concerning self-incrimination. The judge also told the defendant of the maximum and minimum penalties for each offense, but he failed to advise him that these sentences could be imposed consecutively.\nDefendant Reed contends that this single omission constitutes error by the trial court in light of Supreme Court Rule 402, effective September 1, 1970. This court does not agree with the defendant. Supreme Court Rule 402 requires only \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d with its provisions. Further, the Illinois Supreme Court has indicated it will adopt a realistic rather than a rigid approach in construing \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d:\n\u201cThe record of the trial court\u2019s admonition of the defendant at the change-of-plea proceedings shows substantial compliance with our Rule 402 # # # in effect at the time in question * * #. The free and voluntary character of defendant\u2019s plea, as disclosed in this record, is uncontradicted by factual allegations in the petition or by the accompanying affidavits. The fact that defendant was not specifically admonished by the court, on the record, as to each and every consequence of his plea does not sufficiently demonstrate that he was, in fact, unaware of these consequences.\u201d People v. Mendoza (1971), 48 Ill.2d 371, 270 N.E.2d 30.\nThe present record establishes that defendant was aware of the consequences. The judge, following Rule 402, comprehensively informed the defendant of: (a) the nature of the charge; (b) the minimum and maximum penalties for each charge as prescribed by law; (c) his right to plead not guilty; and (d) his right to a trial by jury and to confront witnesses. The judge also made sure the plea, in both cases, was voluntary and rested on a factual basis; he, therefore, substantially complied with the procedure set forth in Supreme Court Rule 402. In addition it was agreed on oral argument that they were negotiated pleas, and the defendant knew in advance what the sentences would be. He therefore was not prejudiced in any manner.\nFor the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in both cases.\nJudgment affirmed.\nADESKO, P. J., and BURMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Lee T. Hettinger and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Richard A. Redmond, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Reed, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\n(Nos. 55686, 55687 cons.;\nFirst District\nDecember 29, 1971.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Lee T. Hettinger and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Richard A. Redmond, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0293-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 314
}