{ "id": 349635, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT W. GUTTENDORF, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Guttendorf", "decision_date": "2000-01-14", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201499\u20140230", "first_page": "1044", "last_page": "1048", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "309 Ill. App. 3d 1044" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "558 N.E.2d 1287", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1294" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 Ill. App. 3d 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2592082 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/201/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "909-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 909174 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17-18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/169/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 N.E.2d 258", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" }, { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 2d 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3251434 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" }, { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/137/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 981", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "984" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3193765 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 N.E.2d 1150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1155" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821394 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 U.S. 367", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157728 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377" }, { "page": "1553" }, { "page": "1256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/331/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 U.S. 532", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6172302 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561", "parenthetical": "Warren, C.J., concurring, joined by Douglas and Goldberg, JJ." }, { "page": "561", "parenthetical": "Warren, C.J., concurring, joined by Douglas and Goldberg, JJ." }, { "page": "1642", "parenthetical": "Warren, C.J., concurring, joined by Douglas and Goldberg, JJ." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/381/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ala. App. 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala. App.", "case_ids": [ 1707724 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558" }, { "page": "469" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala-app/42/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 N.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "690-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill. 2d 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2862118 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 2d 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5360761 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771759 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" }, { "page": "279" }, { "page": "1711-12" }, { "page": "243" }, { "page": "279" }, { "page": "1712" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "482 U.S. 730", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6219896 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "745" }, { "page": "647" }, { "page": "2667" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/482/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 832", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "849" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 Ill. 2d 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 307268 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "459" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/168/0420-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 491, "char_count": 7180, "ocr_confidence": 0.788, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.069495603754166e-07, "percentile": 0.8571781598077726 }, "sha256": "9960bc19d4edb960737e7d0daa2144655f49c49d331eaa82b7e1cddfd3fabcef", "simhash": "1:212a49316bdaa344", "word_count": 1207 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:09.526568+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 W. GUTTENDORF, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe issue in this case is whether defendant\u2019s closed circuit television appearance at his guilty plea hearing violates his right to be physically present under the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8), the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 (177 Ill. 2d R. 402). Because we find that it does, we reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings.\nDefendant was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14.1(a)(1) (West 1998)) and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 16(c)(l)(i) (West 1998)). In June 1998, defendant entered a guilty plea via closed circuit television. Subsequently, he was given concurrent sentences of 20 years in prison on the first count and 4 years\u2019 imprisonment on the other two counts. Defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the guilty plea was denied.\nI\nDefendant argues that the use of closed circuit television in guilty plea hearings violates his constitutional right to be present during the proceedings (U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; 111. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8).\nA criminal defendant has the constitutional right \u201cto appear and participate in person and by counsel at all proceedings that involve his substantial rights.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) People v. McDonald, 168 Ill. 2d 420, 459, 660 N.E.2d 832, 849 (1995). This right is extended to all procedural stages that are critical to the outcome of the case if the defendant\u2019s \u201cpresence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.\u201d Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 96 L. Ed. 2d 631, 647, 107 S. Ct. 2658, 2667 (1987).\nA guilty plea is a critical stage because its direct result is defendant\u2019s conviction. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274, 279, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 1711-12 (1969). It is an admission of guilt of the criminal acts charged as well as of all material facts alleged in the charging instrument. See People v. Johnson, 28 Ill. 2d 531, 533-34 (1963). This admission rebuts the presumption of innocence. See People v. Page, 38 Ill. 2d 611, 612-13, 232 N.E.2d 689, 690-91 (1967). The entry of a guilty plea results in the waiver of a defendant\u2019s \u201cright to a trial by jury and the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.\u201d 177 Ill. 2d R. 402. A guilty plea also waives other constitutional rights, such as the fundamental right to present evidence and to raise the privilege against self-incrimination. See Boykin 395 U.S. at 243, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 279, 89 S. Ct. at 1712.\nA guilty plea is a decisive moment for the defendant in the criminal process. The plea obviates the prosecution\u2019s burden of proof. \u201c Tt supplies both evidence and verdict, ending controversy.\u2019 \u201d Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 n.4, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274, 279 n.4, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 1712 n.4, (1969), quoting Woodard v. State, 42 Ala. App. 552, 558, 171 So. 2d 462, 469 (1965). It carries the same finality as a jury verdict. The atmosphere of the courtroom can play a critical, albeit intangible, role in the proceedings, including a hearing on a plea. A courtroom \u201cis more than a location with seats for a judge, jury, witnesses, defendant, prosecutor, defense counsel and public observers; the setting that the courtroom provides is itself an important element in the constitutional conception of trial, contributing a dignity essential to \u2018the integrity of the trial\u2019 process.\u201d Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 561, 14 L. Ed. 2d 543, 561, 85 S. Ct. 1628, 1642 (1965) (Warren, C.J., concurring, joined by Douglas and Goldberg, JJ.), quoting Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 377, 91 L. Ed. 1546, 1553, 67 S. Ct. 1249, 1256 (1947).\nIn a televised appearance, crucial aspects of a defendant\u2019s physical presence may be lost or misinterpreted, such as the participant\u2019s demeanor, facial expressions and vocal inflections, the ability for immediate and unmediated contact with counsel, and the solemnity of a court proceeding. In a guilty plea hearing, as in a trial, these components may be lost if a defendant\u2019s appearance is through closed circuit television.\nBecause of the critical significance of a guilty plea to a defendant, we hold that a televised guilty plea is not permitted under either the United States or the Illinois Constitution. See U.S. Const., amend. VI; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8. Thus, defendant should have been physically present at the time he entered his guilty plea.\nII\nDefendant also contends that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 requires his personal presence in the courtroom during his guilty plea hearing. Rule 402 states that \u201c[t]he court shall not accept a plea of guilty *** without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands [specific admonitions].\u201d 177 Ill. 2d R. 402.\nSupreme court rules are to be construed in the same manner as statutes. In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 404, 692 N.E.2d 1150, 1155 (1998). Whenever possible, a rule must be read to avoid an unconstitutional result. In re Loss, 119 Ill. 2d 186, 194, 518 N.E.2d 981, 984 (1987). Because we have found that our constitutions require defendant to be physically present in court during his guilty plea hearing, we will not construe Rule 402 to permit his appearance by closed circuit television.\nIll\nAlthough defendant failed to object to the use of closed circuit television either at the plea hearing or in a written posttrial motion (see People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65, 80, 560 N.E.2d 258, 264 (1990)), this issue must be treated as plain error. Plain error may be found when the evidence is closely balanced or when the defendant is stripped of substantial rights, resulting in fundamental unfairness. People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17-18, 660 N.E.2d 901, 909-10 (1995); Defendants in felony cases have the constitutional right to be physically present at each \u201ccritical stage\u201d of the proceedings. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XTV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 8. See also People v. Young, 201 Ill. App. 3d 521, 533, 558 N.E.2d 1287, 1294 (1990). If a defendant fails to object when his right to appear in person during a critical stage is violated, he is deemed to have waived that right unless plain error is found. See Bean, 137 Ill. 2d at 80, 560 N.E.2d at 264. As discussed above, defendant was denied a substantial right at a critical stage of the proceedings under the United States Constitution, which deprived him of fundamental fairness during the proceeding. He must be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.\nCONCLUSION\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nSLATER, EJ., and KOEHLER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Carrie B. Marche (argued), of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Michael Kick, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and John Wood (argued), both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT W. GUTTENDORF, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201499\u20140230\nOpinion filed January 14, 2000.\nCarrie B. Marche (argued), of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nMichael Kick, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and John Wood (argued), both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1044-01", "first_page_order": 1064, "last_page_order": 1068 }