{
  "id": 2871048,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Bradley et al., Defendants.-(Clifford Webb, Defendant-Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bradley",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-20",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 12944-47 cons.",
  "first_page": "851",
  "last_page": "853",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 851"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "310 N.E.2d 394",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill.App.3d 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2615249
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/18/0739-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.E.2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill.App.3d 853",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2869672
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/27/0853-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.E.2d 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill.App.3d 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2461042
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/15/0465-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.E.2d 52",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill.App.3d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2785069
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/26/0288-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.734,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08525130229600258
    },
    "sha256": "ec997c47b885414cbcf1a7a6f5f85e5ddcdbd7d74193d0bb9e0ef73fd024ab77",
    "simhash": "1:96acb60e004c28a6",
    "word_count": 660
  },
  "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. John Bradley et al., Defendants.\u2014(Clifford Webb, Defendant-Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant pleaded guilty to four indictments. The indictments included two charges of armed robbery. The plea was negotiated. The trial court imposed those sentences recommended by the State\u2019s Attorney. Defendant received concurrent sentences of 7 to 20 years on the armed robbery charges. He also received 1 to 10 for theft (the third indictment) and 1 to 3 for unlawful possession of a motor vehicle (the fourth charge).\nDefendant contends that tire court did not have a sufficient informational basis to set a higher than minimum sentence on the armed robbery convictions. We affirm.\nSection 5 \u2014 8\u20141(c)(2) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 1005\u20148\u20141(c)(2)) provides that the minimum term of imprisonment for a Class 1 felony, such as armed robbery, shall be 4 years,\n\u201cunless the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, sets a higher minimum term.\u201d\nThe court, in the case at bar, specifically found that there was cause to increase the minimum from 4 to 7 and that this was based upon the facts shown in the record as to the nature of the offenses.\nDefendant argues that the sentencing hearing as provided in section 5 \u2014 4\u20141 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 1005\u20144\u20141) is mandatory even where there is a negotiated plea agreement.\nThe Code clearly provides that presentence investigation can be waived by defendant (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 1005\u20143\u20141) and defendant did so in this case. The record shows defendant knowingly waived his opportunity to present evidence in mitigation in return for the State\u2019s waiving their right to present evidence in aggravation. Defendant also knowingly waived his opportunity to speak in his own behalf.\nThe court was not, however, operating in a factual vacuum. The court,due to the comprehensive way in which the factual basis for the plea was presented, was fully aware of the aggravating circumstances therein. Defendant\u2019s counsel also pointed out several mitigating aspects of the offenses to the trial court. The court was aware that defendant had a previous record. Under these circumstances, and considering - the course of conduct revealed by these offenses, the trial court had sufficient facts before it to warrant the sentence imposed. The sentence imposed was freely bargained for. People v. Smith (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 288, 325 N.E.2d 52; People v. Martin (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 465, 305 N.E.2d 12.\nSeveral recent cases have reversed the sentence where no sentencing hearing was held and a higher than statutory minimum was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. People v. Barto (3rd Dist. 1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 853, 327 N.E.2d 469; People v. Matychowiak (5th Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 739, 310 N.E.2d 394.\nThese cases are distinguishable from the cases at bar because in each the trial court expressly excluded the defendant from offering the kinds of evidence presentable in a sentencing hearing. In the case at b\u00e1r, defendant was offered the opportunities by the trial court but the defendant knowingly waived them. Therefore this case does not present us with the issue of whether a negotiated plea ipso facto waives the requirements of the sentencing hearing.\nWe hold that defendant can knowingly waive a sentencing hearing and the trial court can impose a higher than minimum sentence as long as there are sufficient facts before the court to warrant the sentence imposed, as in the case at bar.\nAffirmed.\nTRAPP and GREEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Wilson, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Basil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (James R. Coryell, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Bradley et al., Defendants.\u2014(Clifford Webb, Defendant-Appellant.)\n(Nos. 12944-47 cons.;\nFourth District\nNovember 20, 1975.\nRichard J. Wilson, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nBasil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (James R. Coryell, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0851-01",
  "first_page_order": 879,
  "last_page_order": 881
}