{
  "id": 2872719,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William J. Cartwright, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Cartwright",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 13025",
  "first_page": "180",
  "last_page": "182",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 180"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "236 N.E.2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ill.2d 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2856749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/39/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.E.2d 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill.App.3d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2866698
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/27/0785-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.E.2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill.App.3d 1072",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5308443
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/24/1072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.E.2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill.App.2d 775",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2825064
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/130/0775-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.E.2d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "478"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill.App.2d 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1584460
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "131"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/119/0116-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.E. 615",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 Ill. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5177366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/323/0133-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 5116,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.74,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4121637979665996
    },
    "sha256": "1c4b10859380c5e196f56832cbffef3e2178ecfa8de7c56133bf3df52ed8e2b9",
    "simhash": "1:606121cdfb1eb3f6",
    "word_count": 848
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:25:47.184380+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. William J. Cartwright, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was convicted by a jury of forgery and received a sentence of two to six years\u2019 imprisonment.\nHe appeals, raising two contentions. The first is that the trial court erred in giving a confession instruction and refusing an admission instruction. The second issue is a question of excessiveness of sentence.\nAt trial Roger Goodwin testified that he was an employee of the Food Center. On January 15, 1974, a man identified by Goodwin as defendant, handed the check in question to Goodwin for it to be cashed. The check, as presented, was made out to defendant, signed by M. P. Quandahl as payor, drawn upon the account of M. P. Auto Sales. It was dated January 15, 1974, for the amount of $98.75. Goodwin, having been notified by another store that several checks had been stolen from M. P. Auto Sales, detained defendant for the police. M. P. Quandahl testified that the signature on the check was not his and that he had not made any such check.\nTwo police officers testified that defendant was given his Miranda warnings and thereafter made a statement. The statement, in substance, was that his wife wrote the check, and defendant went into the store and attempted to cash it but the employee of the store caught him and held him for the police.\nOver defendant\u2019s objection, the trial court gave IPI \u2014 Criminal No. 3.07, the instruction on confessions. The judge also refused to give defendant\u2019s tendered instruction on admissions, IPI \u2014 Criminal No. 3.06.\nIt has been considered prejudicial error to give a confession instruction when defendant\u2019s statements constituted only admissions. People v. Sovetsky, 323 Ill. 133, 153 N.E. 615.\n\u201cA confession is a comprehensive admission of guilt or of facts which necessarily and directly imply guilt.\u201d\nPeople v. Rollins, 119 Ill.App.2d 116, 131, 255 N.E.2d 471, 478.\nForgery is defined as:\n\u201cA person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he knowingly:\n(1) Makes or alters any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that it purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority; or\n(2) Issues or delivers such instrument knowing it to have been thus made or altered; * * Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 17\u20143.\nDefendant\u2019s statement acknowledged that he knew the check was not made by the person who appeared to have made it. It acknowledged that, knowing this, defendant went to a store and attempted to have it cashed but was caught. Defendant argues, first, that this does not admit delivery and second, it does not name Goodwin, the person to whom the check was passed.\nObviously a confession need not be made in tire words of the statute defining the offense. (People v. Rollins, 119 Ill.App.2d 116, 255 N.E.2d 471.) Defendant did not use the words \u201cissue\u201d or \u201cdeliver\u201d and it would have been remarkable for him to do so. An attempt to cash a check in the context of defendant\u2019s words necessarily and directly implied a delivery to whomever was supposed to cash it.\nIn People v. White, 130 Ill.App.2d 775, 267 N.E.2d 129, we held that an indictment was sufficient to charge forgery, even though it failed to identify the person, to whom the instrument was delivered. The identity of that person is not an essential element of the offense. Since defendant acknowledged all the essential elements, his statement was a confession and the instruction given was proper.\nDefendant received a two- to six-year sentence in the penitentiary. .He protests that this is excessive. Both parties have briefed the question of whether this court has the authority to reduce a penitentiary sentence to probation. Other districts are not in agreement on this question. (People v. Rednour (5th Dist.), 24 Ill.App.3d 1072, 322 N.E.2d 492; People v. Cross (3rd Dist.), 27 Ill.App.3d 785, 327 N.E.2d 81.) We find it unnecessary to consider this issue since we do not consider this an appropriate case in which to exercise our discretion to reduce sentences. Defendant had two prior felony convictions for which he served a full sentence after a parole violation. He also failed to appear for a court appearance and violated his bond by leaving the State without permission. The trial court fuUy considered the mitigating circumstances presented by defendant but found this an appropriate sentence. The trial court is in a far better position to impose sentence. People v. Caldwell, 39 Ill.2d 346, 236 N.E.2d 706.\nFor the reasons stated above the judgment and sentence of the circuit court of Adams County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nCRAVEN and TRAPP, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Wilson and Joshua Sachs, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Robert J. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (G. Michael Prall, and Robert C. Perry, 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. William J. Cartwright, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 13025;\nFourth District\nNovember 6, 1975.\nRichard J. Wilson and Joshua Sachs, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nRobert J. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (G. Michael Prall, and Robert C. Perry, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0180-01",
  "first_page_order": 208,
  "last_page_order": 210
}