{
  "id": 2963479,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. Mize, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Mize",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 12729",
  "first_page": "781",
  "last_page": "784",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 781"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "328 N.E.2d 568",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill.App.3d 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5409290
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/28/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.E.2d 773",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill.2d 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2953999
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "59"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/58/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.E.2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill.2d 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2959171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/59/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.E.2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 2d 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2952306
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/58/0187-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 5185,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32254583182262747
    },
    "sha256": "6bdc07b018a665ac8c797d83b6ec9cca7b1638e2dd37a40975afce1b59182dbd",
    "simhash": "1:a2ee10e1ffcc8c35",
    "word_count": 829
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:26.295263+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. Michael D. Mize, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn April 22, 1974, defendant-appellant, appearing pro se, pleaded guilty to an information charging him with two counts of battery.. The trial court admonished him routinely in accordance with some aspects of Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 1\u00cd0A, par. 402), but neglected to describe the nature of the charge, inquire into the voluntariness of defendant\u2019s plea, or explain defendant\u2019s right to confront witnesses against him. Moreover, there appears to have been no determination of a factual basis for the plea in the trial court. While the record on appeal includes a brief sentencing report containing information about the charges, the lack of a transcript at defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing makes it impossible to determine whether the trial court considered that information or whether defendant ever confirmed the pertinent allegations therein.\nDefendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 364 days. On appeal, he argues that his guilty plea must be vacated because the admonitions below do not constitute substantial compliance with Rule 402.\nIt is now established that there need be only substantial, not literal, compliance with the provisions of Rule 402. (People v. Krantz, 58 Ill. 2d 187, 317 N.E.2d 559.) In Krantz, the court\u2019s failure to inquire into defendant\u2019s understanding of the nature of the charge was held not to require reversal under Rule 402, since defendant\u2019s statement that he understood the charge, coupled with the prosecutor\u2019s recital of the anticipated evidence and defendant\u2019s own statement as .t\u00f3 motive, was said to constitute \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d with Rul\u00e9 402.\nIn the instant case, the sole reference to nature of the charge is the court\u2019s inquiry:\n\u201cQ. That\u2019s your copy of the Information. You are charged with two counts of Battery. * * # Do you understand the charges against you and the rights you have?\nA. Yes, sir.\u201d\nThere was no showing that the defendant could read, so as to ascertain the nature of battery from the information, nor was he assisted by counsel who might have advised him in that regard. There was no recitation of a factual basis prior to entry of his plea, nor did the defendant himself describe or admit to any elements of the charge. We cannot agree with the State\u2019s contention there was substantial compliance with Rule 402 on this point. Nor will the record support the State\u2019s claim that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of determining the voluntariness of defendant\u2019s plea. In People v. Ellis, 59 Ill.2d 255, 320 N.E.2d 15, the court found substantial compliance with that requirement where defendant said he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and where the terms of the plea agreement were read in open court with defendant\u2019s concurrence. Although the defendant here also stated he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, the record does not reveal the circumstances behind that plea or the quid pro quo received in exchange for the plea. Rather, this record leaves to the imagination of this court the voluntariness of the guilty plea of a defendant appearing without assistance of counsel.\nLastly, nothing in this record can be said to constitute substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 402 that defendant be advised of his right to confront witnesses and that a factual basis for the plea be established.\nHowever, the failure to achieve substantial compliance with Rule 402 does not automatically require vacation of defendant\u2019s conviction. (People v. Dudley, 58 Ill.2d 57, 316 N.E.2d 773; People v. White, 28 Ill.App.3d 555, 328 N.E.2d 568.) Where it appears from the face of the record that defendant cannot possibly have been banned or prejudiced by the error, reversal will not be required. Thus, where the plea agreement itself was not read in court, but tire record established the voluntariness of the plea and defendant\u2019s satisfaction \u201cwith the plea agreement that his attorney had arranged in his behalf,\u201d-tire court affirmed defendant\u2019s conviction. (People v. Dudley, 58 Ill.2d 57, 59.) This court has upheld entry of judgment on a guilty plea where no factual basis was established where there was no assertion defendant had in fact not committed the charged offense. White.\nThe instant case presents the special circumstance of four violations of Rule 402 involving a defendant appearing without aid of counsel. Especially significant is our inability to determine from the record whether defendant freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to a charge he understood. We cannot say with any assurance that defendant\u2019s rights were not prejudiced by this cursory inquiry into tire circumstances of his plea. Since this record does not show substantial compliance with the rule, we must reverse.\nReversed and remanded.\nSIMKINS and GREEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Wilson and Daniel D. Yuhas, both of State Appellate Defenders Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Basil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. Mize, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12729;\nFourth District\nJanuary 8, 1976.\nRichard J. Wilson and Daniel D. Yuhas, both of State Appellate Defenders Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nBasil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0781-01",
  "first_page_order": 807,
  "last_page_order": 810
}